May 5, 1997; School District 2071 (Lake Crystal)
5/5/1997 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On February 10, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated February 7, 1997, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Mankato Free Press and its news director, Joe Spear. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper's access to certain data maintained by School District # 2071, Lake Crystal. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stanley Ries, Superintendent of District 2071. The purposes of this letter dated February 20, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him or the District's attorney to provide information or support for the District's position. On February 24, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated February 21, 1997, from Steven Rizzi, an attorney representing District 2071. A summary of the facts as submitted by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. Mr. Spear requested from District 2071 certain information concerning a settlement between the District and an employee. Mr. Spear received a written response from Mr. Rizzi in a letter dated January 22, 1997. Attached to the letter was a copy of the settlement agreement; however, significant portions had been redacted. Soon thereafter, Mr. Rizzi explained to Mr. Spear that the redacted data were classified as not public pursuant to either Minnesota Statutes Section 13.42, medical data, or Section 13.43, personnel data. Mr. Anfinson related that he then, in a letter, requested further clarification from Mr. Rizzi. In that letter he apparently asserted that Section 13.42 was not applicable because it classifies only those data collected by medical facilities. Therefore, data of a medical nature maintained in a personnel file would appear instead to be classified as personnel data pursuant to Section 13.43. Mr. Anfinson related that he also stated to Mr. Rizzi that if portions of the data redacted from the settlement agreement included personnel data about the employee, whether medical or otherwise, such redactions were not appropriate given the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6). Mr. Anfinson further wrote that Mr. Rizzi, upon receipt of the letter, agreed that the best course for resolving the issues raised would be to seek an advisory opinion from the Commissioner.
In his response to Mr. Anfinson's opinion request, Mr. Rizzi wrote, I believe that Mr. Anfinson and your office have accurately outlined the issue presented by the newspaper's request. He further wrote:
Issues:
In his request for an advisory opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following isues:
Discussion:
Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 2071 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this opinion, certain data about settlement agreements are specifically classified as public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6).
Subdivision 2 (a) (6) of Section 13.43 states:
Mr. Rizzi, on behalf of District 2071, has asserted that some of the data about the employee should remain private, regardless of the specific language in Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6). Mr. Rizzi is concerned about medical information relating to the employee that appears in the settlement agreement and makes arguments as to why such data should remain private. He argued that the data in question are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.42, medical data. He also argued that the provisions of the evidentiary privilege statute (Minnesota Statutes Section 595.02, subdivision 1 (d)) and the Patient's Bill of Rights (Minnesota Statutes Section 144.651, subdivision 16) require that the data in the possession of District 2071 remain private. None of the data maintained by District 2071 about its employee are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.42. For data to be classified under Section 13.42, those data must be data collected because a person was or is a patient/client of a hospital, nursing home, medical center, clinic, health or nursing agency operated by a government entity. District 2071 is not a health care provider as per Section 13.42. Further, the data the District collects and creates about its employees are personnel data under Section 13.43. Therefore, the data are personnel data pursuant to Section 13.43 and not medical data under Section 13.42. Mr. Rizzi may be suggesting that the data about the employee are private because the data have traveled from a medical facility subject to Chapter 13 to the District. If so, the effect under Section 13.03, subdivision 4 (c), would be for the data to keep its classification as private. However, subdivision 4 (a) of section 13.03 states, The classification of data in the possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrativen rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a specific statute applicable to the datain the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. (Emphasis added.) In the situation of this opinion, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), applies specifically to the data in the settlement agreement. Thus, if data in the settlement agreement were disseminated to District 2071 by a health facility subject to Chapter 13, those data have been made public by Section 13.43. The Commissioner does not agree that either Section 595.02, subdivision 1 (d) or Section 144.651, subdivision 16, have any relevance to the situation at hand. Finally, Mr. Rizzi argued he could not agree that the language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), would override the confidential nature of medical information. However, it seems reasonable to assume that if the Legislature intended for medical data, which are part of a settlement agreement, to remain private, it (the Legislature) would have enacted the appropriate language. The language of Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (6), states that terms of a settlement agreement are public data. If a government entity and an employee choose to include medical data, or data that would otherwise be private, as part of the terms of a settlement agreement, those data must be made public pursuant to Chapter 13. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 5, 1997 |
Litigation
Personnel data
Evidentiary privilege (Chapter 595)
Personnel files
Medical data
Settlement agreements
Change in classification 13.03
