Facts and Procedural History:

On February 3, 2006, the Commissioner received a letter, dated same, from Bernard Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the Public Safety Officer Benefit Eligibility Panel. In his letter, Johnson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Panel maintains. IPAD required additional information, which Mr. Johnson provided on both March 30 and April 13, 2006.

A summary of the facts as Mr. Johnson provided them is as follows:

The 2005 Minnesota Legislature created the [Panel] to review claims by injured peace officers and firefighters for continued health insurance benefits under Minn. Stat. section 299A.465, subd. 1. . . .

The Panel determines whether a public safety officer has been approved to receive a duty-related disability pension and determines whether the officer's or firefighter's occupational duties or professional responsibility put the officer or firefighter at risk for the type of illness or injury actually sustained.

The panel is subject to the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 13D. . . . 

In reviewing a public safety officer's request for benefits, the Panel is supplied medical data to substantiate the claimant's disability and injury, allowing the Panel to determine whether or not the public safety officer is eligible for benefits . . . . 

The medical data furnished to the [Panel] is provided by the applicant themselves[sic]. Medical data is not sent to the Panel by a hospital, clinic, doctor or any healthcare provider. The medical documentation is submitted by the Claimant and attached to their Benefit Eligibility Form . . . . 

Issues:

Based on Mr. Johnson's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:

Because Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), classifies applications and supporting documents as private data, can those documents be released to claimant's employers, who would be responsible for the continuing health benefits of the claimant should the Panel determine that claimant is eligible for continued health benefits, to allow employers to present evidence either in support of or denial of the claim? Can the Panel close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant's medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3)? Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a) that classify an application and supporting documents as private data, prohibit the Panel from discussing the name of a claimant in an Open Meeting?

---

Discussion:

Issue 1:

Because Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), classifies applications and supporting documents as private data, can those documents be released to claimant's employers, who would be responsible for the continuing health benefits of the claimant should the Panel determine that claimant is eligible for continued health benefits, to allow employers to present evidence either in support of or denial of the claim?

The Panel is created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 7. It appears, therefore, to be a political subdivision and subject to the provisions of Chapter 13. (See section 13.02, subdivision 11.)

Section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), states that whenever a peace officer or firefighter has been approved to receive a duty-related disability pension, the officer or firefighter may apply to the Panel for a determination of whether or not s/he meets certain requirements. Subdivision 6(a) of section 299C.465 classifies the applications and supporting documents as private data. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are accessible to the data subject but not to members of the public. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400, further clarifies that private data also are accessible to individuals within the entity whose work assignments require access.

Thus, the claimants' applications and supporting documents are accessible only to the data subjects, the Panel members, and Panel employees. A claimant's application and supporting documentation are available to his/her employer only if the claimant consents to the release of the data.

Issue 2:

Can the Panel close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant's medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3)?

As discussed in Issue 1, a claimant's application and supporting documents are private data pursuant to section 299C.465, subdivision 6(a). Based on Mr. Johnson's comments, the Commissioner assumes that any medical information a claimant submits is part of his/her application and supporting documentation. As such, any medical information is private data under section 299C.465, subdivision 6(a).

Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, states:

(a) Except as provided in this chapter, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data.

(b) Data that are not public may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.

Section 13D.05, subdivision 2, sets forth the situations in which a public body either is required or allowed to close a meeting. As there is no provision in section 13D.05 allowing or requiring the closing of a public meeting to discuss application data made private by section 299A.465, subdivision 6, the Panel may not close a meeting to discuss medical data that are part of a claimant's application.

It is important to note that even though a meeting may not be closed to discuss application data, the data retain their classification as private data on individuals. However, any of the data that are part of a record of the meeting are public. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 1(c), which states, Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data's original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. )

Issue 3:

Do the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), that classify an application and supporting documents as private data, prohibit the Panel from discussing the name of a claimant in an Open Meeting?

As stated above, pursuant to Section 13D.05, subdivision 1, public bodies may discuss private data in open meetings without liability or penalty, assuming the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.

In the situation currently before the Commissioner, if the Panel is uncomfortable discussing the claims in public, it seems the Panel could discuss each claim without identifying the individual applicants by assigning random numbers or letters as identifiers. Ultimately, however, the Panel and its legal advisors will have to determine what private data the Panel may discuss publicly to comply with Chapter 13D and will have to decide, as well, how best to conduct the work of the Panel effectively.

---

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Johnson raised is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 299A.465, subdivision 6(a), applications and supporting documents are private data and cannot be released to a claimant's employer unless the claimant gives his/her consent for the release. The Panel may not close a portion of a meeting to discuss a claimant's medical data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(a)(3). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 1, the Panel may discuss private data in an open meeting if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the Panel's authority, and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the Panel.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: May 17, 2006

---