Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 97-047

November 17, 1997; Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center

11/17/1997 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 September 22, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated September 22, 1997, from Simcha Plisner, an attorney representing D. In his letter, Mr. Plisner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding D's access to certain data maintained by the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center, hereinafter RTC.

PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Judith Krohn, CEO of the RTC, in response to Mr. Plisner's request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 1, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Plisner's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the RTC's position. On October 20, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Ms. Krohn.

A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Plisner is as follows. In a letter dated on or about August 7, 1997, Mr. Plisner wrote to Ms. Krohn and asked for copies of certain data about D. Upon receiving no response, Mr. Plisner requested the data again from Ms. Krohn in a letter dated on or about August 24, 1997. In a letter dated August 27, 1997, staff in the medical records department responded by asking for a new release of information form. On August 28, 1997, Mr. Plisner faxed to the medical records staff a copy of a release form. Having heard nothing further, Mr. Plisner wrote again, in a letter dated on or about September 4, 1997. He wrote, I still await receiving the material I requested as counsel for [D] under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act originally back on or about August 7, 1997.

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, has the Anoka County Metro Regional Treatment Center responded appropriately to a request for access to data by the data subject?

Discussion:

In the case at hand, the data created, collected, and maintained about D by the RTC are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.46, welfare data. Private data are accessible to the data subject and individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject ( see Section 13.02, subdivision 12, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2). Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, government entities are required to respond immediately or within five to ten working days.

In her response to Mr. Plisner's opinion request, Ms. Krohn wrote:

Our Medical Records staff did receive a request for charting from Mr. Plisner for his client....[t]he signed release of information did not authorize AMRTC to release the specific information Mr. Plisner requested. A letter was sent to Mr. Plisner stating that a new release form would need to be signed authorizing the specific information he requested and offered to discuss any questions he had about the release with the Medical Records staff.

A second release of information form was faxed to AMRTC which still was not specific to the information Mr. Plisner was requesting. Some information that Mr. Plisner requested...needs a court authorization to be released...

At this point, [the Minnesota Department of Human Services] was contacted for assistance and guidance...AMRTC's Medical Record department staff wanted clear direction...

Because Mr. Plisner and the RTC have been involved in a couple rounds of communication, there are essentially two parts to this opinion. The first is whether the RTC responded appropriately to Mr. Plisner's original request (on or about August 7, 1997) and the second is whether the RTC responded appropriately after Mr. Plisner faxed the second release form.

Regarding the first part, Mr. Plisner apparently began requesting access to the data about his client on or about August 7, 1997. He then made a second request on or about August 24, 1997. The RTC responded (with a request for an additional consent to release form) on August 27, 1997. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the RTC was required to respond within ten working days. Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine whether the RTC responded to Mr. Plisner's original request within the time frame required by Section 13.04.

Regarding the second part, after faxing a second consent to release form on or about August 28, 1997, Mr. Plisner heard nothing further from the RTC. He then wrote another letter on or about September 4, 1997, to Ms. Krohn but had not received a response when he requested this opinion on September 22, 1997.

It is the Commissioner's opinion that when Mr. Plisner faxed the second release form to the RTC, the statutory clock began to tick. At that point in time, Mr. Plisner presumably assumed that he had provided the RTC with sufficient information to respond to his request. However, it was not until Ms. Krohn responded (on October 20, 1997) to Mr. Plisner's opinion request that Mr. Plisner was made aware that: 1) the second consent to release was somehow inadequate; and 2) some of the data would not be released unless Mr. Plisner obtained a court order. Because Ms. Krohn did not respond until after ten working days had passed, the RTC did not comply with the time frame requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3.

Opinion:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 (subdivision 3) and 13.46, the Anoka County Metro Regional Treatment Center did not, in part, respond in a timely manner to a request for access to data by the data subject.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: November 17, 1997