Pаtrick Walsh, Relator-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 21AP-109
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
February 1, 2022
[Cite as Walsh v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2022-Ohio-272.]
(C.P.C. No. 20CV-6561) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
Rendered on February 1, 2022
On brief: Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, LPA, Ralph E. Breitfeller, and Shana DeMooy, for appellant. Argued: Ralph E. Breitfeller.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, William C. Greene, and Theresa R. Dirisamer, for appellant Ohio Department of Health. Argued: Theresa R. Dirisamer.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of
LUPER SCHUSTER, P.J.
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Patrick Walsh, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of respondents-appellees, Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, and Karen Sorrell, Chief, Bureau of Vital Statistics (collectively “ODH“). For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In August 2020, Walsh submitted a public records request with ODH requesting the following: “Fоr all deaths in the State of Ohio from 1/1/2020 to the present, please provide the following information: First Name of Decedent, Middle Name (initial) of Decedent, Last Name of Decedent, Date of Death of Decedent, Date of Birth of Decedent, Gender of Decedent, Last Known Address of Decedent (including city, state & zip code), Social Security Number of Decedent (last 4 digits will suffice), Primary Underlying ICD-10 cause of death code, Other Contributing ICD-10 Cause of Death Codes, Occupation of Decеdent, Industry of Decedent.” (Ex. A, attached to Dec. 22, 2020 Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl. Instanter.) A few weeks later, Walsh clarified that he was seeking ODH‘s “Death Registry,” containing all the above information, from January 1, 2020, to the present. ODH denied Walsh‘s request.
{¶ 3} In October 2020, Walsh initiated this matter against ODH seeking a writ of mandamus to compel ODH to comply with his public records request. In February 2021, and after Walsh filed first and second amended petitions, ODH filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 4} Walsh timely appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 5} Walsh assigns the following errors for our review:
-
The trial court erred by dismissing Relator-Appellant‘s Second Amended Petition on the grounds that R.C. 3701.17 prohibited disclosure of the cause of death listed in Ohio Department of Health death records. - The trial court erred in holding that the fact that death certificates, including the cause of death, are otherwise obtainable does not make the same information, maintained by the Department of Health, obtainable through a public records request.
- The trial court erred in holding that thе Department of Health‘s previous practice of producing public records, including the cause of death, did not favor disclosure now because “[e]stoppel does not apply against the State.”
- The trial court erred by overruling Relator-Appellant‘s argument that the Respondent‘s change of law, by changing the interpretation of
R.C. 3701.17 , amounted to rulemaking and violated due process. - The trial court erred in concluding that mandamus is not a proper vehicle for addressing procedural due process violations.
III. Discussion
A. Standard of Review –
{¶ 6} Walsh generally challenges the trial court‘s granting of ODH‘s motion to dismiss pursuant to
B. Analysis
{¶ 7} For ease of discussion, we analyze together Walsh‘s first four assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, Walsh asserts the trial court erred in finding
{¶ 9} In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court‘s paramount concern is legislative intent. State v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 380, 2004-Ohio-3206, ¶ 34, citing State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne, 82 Ohio St.3d 44, 47 (1998). To discern legislative intent, a court first considers the statutory language, “reading words and phrаses in context and construing them in accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.” State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, ¶ 40.
{¶ 10} This appeal centers on Ohio‘s Public Records Act,
{¶ 11} For the purpose of
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} Thus, applicability of
{¶ 16} Walsh argues, however, that
{¶ 17} The issue therefore resolves to whether the ability to obtain a decedent‘s cause of death via his or her death certificate reflects the General Assembly‘s intent that this information, which is otherwise protected health information under
{¶ 18} Death certificates are not public records for the purpose of
{¶ 19} Second, we are also unpersuaded by Walsh‘s citation to Perez. In Id., the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the appellants had “presented a real and justiciable controversy under
{¶ 20} Walsh asserts that the public release of cause of death information on a death certificate is unrestricted, and, therefore,
{¶ 21} Upon our review of all pertinent statutes, we find no indication of General Assembly intent to exclude a decedent‘s cause of death information from the confidentiality protection of
{¶ 22} For these reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding ODH has no duty to grant Walsh‘s public record request. Accordingly, we overrule Walsh‘s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error.
{¶ 23} Lastly, we address Walsh‘s fifth assignment of error, which alleges the trial court erred in holding that mandamus is not a proper means to obtain his requested relief. We agree such a holding would be contrary to Ohio lаw because mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with Ohio‘s Public Records Act. State ex rel. Griffin v. Doe, Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3626, ¶ 5, citing
IV. Disposition
{¶ 24} Having overruled all five of Walsh‘s assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, J., concurs.
JAMISON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
DORRIAN, J., concurring.
{¶ 25} I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err in dismissing Walsh‘s writ of mandamus. I write separately to additionally observe that the specific records requested by Walsh included a request for the first, middle and last name, last known address, social security number, and possibly other identifying information regarding each decedent. Because the records requested both: (1) described the decedents’ past physical status or condition, receipt of treatment or care or purchase of health products, and (2) included information that reveals the identity of each decedent or could be used to reveal the identity of each decedent, the recоrds met the definition of protected
JAMISON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 26} I agree with the majority in disposition of assignments of error two, three, four, and five, but respectfully dissent on assignment of error one and would order that the trial court grant Walsh‘s writ of mandamus in part and order ODH to release recоrds after the protected health information is redacted.
The Public Records Act “mandates access to public records upon request unless the requested records are specifically excepted from disclosure.” Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 88 Ohio St.3d at 170, 724 N.E.2d 411, citing State ex rel. Miami Student v. Miami Univ., 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 170, 1997-Ohio-386, 680 N.E.2d 956 (1997). “Release may be prohibited by an exception or by another statute providing protection to the subject of the information sought.” Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O‘Shea Legal Group, 145 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-556, 50 N.E.3d 499, ¶ 6. The records “custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception” to release or access. State ex rel. Carr v. Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006-Ohio-6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 30. Exceptions “are strictly construed against the public-records custodian.” State ex rel. Mahajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 127 Ohio St.3d 497, 2010-Ohio-5995, 940 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 24. The PRA itself “‘is construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public records.‘” State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 1996-Ohio-214, 662 N.E.2d 334 (1996).
{¶ 27} Although the Public Records Act is construed in favor of disclosure of public records, the request is prohibited because Walsh requested both information that described the decedents’ past physical status or condition and information that reveals the identity of each decedents protected health information pursuant to
{¶ 28} In Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O‘Shea Legal Group, 145 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-556, ¶ 3, the trial court reviewed the records requested pursuant to the Public Records Act,
“[t]he court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court‘s ‘blanket exemption’ was inappropriate because many of the records, even those that сontain ‘protected health information,’ contain other information that is not excepted
from disclosure. The court declared that instead of withholding all records, Cuyahoga County BOH must examine each document, redact any protected health information, and release any remaining unprotected information not otherwise excepted. 2013-Ohio-5736, 6 N.E.3d 631, ¶ 31.” Id at ¶ 4.
{¶ 29} Cuyahoga County BOH then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The records request sought “documentation or information of all homes * * * in Cuyahoga County where a minor child was found to have elevated blood lead levels in excess of 10 [mg/dl].” Id. at ¶ 10. Although the Supreme Court held that the request was inextricably linked to protected health information, the case was “remand[ed] to the trial court to review first the sample files and, if necessary, all the responsive information in the possession of the Cuyahoga County BOH to determine what information, if any, can be released after all protected health information is redacted.” Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶ 30} As in the above case, ODH has a clear legal duty to release the records with redacted protected health information. Walsh has a right to the public records requested as the Public Records Act is construed in favor of disclosure of public records. I do agree with the majority that Walsh‘s public records request contains protected health information, but I would remand to the trial court to grant the writ of mandamus, review the records, and determine what can be released after the protected health information is redacted.