November 6, 1996; Weiner Memorial Medical Center
11/6/1996 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 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated September 16, 1996, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Marshall Independent, a newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the Independent's access to certain government data maintained by the Weiner Memorial Medical Center, hereinafter Medical Center. The Medical Center is located at Marshall, Minnesota. (Although Mr. Anfinson raised 3 issues, the Commissioner determined that her authority extended to only 2 of those issues.) In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ronald Jensen, Administrator of the Medical Center. The purposes of this letter dated September 30, 1996, were to inform Mr. Jensen of Mr. Anfinson's request, and to ask him or the Medical Center's attorney to provide information or support for the Center's position. On October 7, 1996, PIPA received a faxed response from Brian Murphy an attorney representing the Medical Center. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In his request, Mr. Anfinson stated that the Independent and the Medical Center have recently been engaged in a dispute over access to certain data maintained by the Medical Center. First, Mr. Anfinson noted that the newspaper has sought to make a standing request to the Medical Center for directory information so that repeated requests for the same basic information do not have to be made on a daily or weekly basis. Mr. Anfinson stated, ...the Medical Center has taken the position that a new request must be made every time the newspaper seeks additional directory data.
The second issue raised by Mr. Anfinson relates to a change made during the 1996 Legislative Session to Section 13.42, subdivision 2. Mr. Anfinson wrote:
In regard to the first issue, Mr. Murphy wrote, in part:
In regard to the second issue, Mr. Murphy wrote, in part:
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
In framing the first issue, Mr. Anfinson asserted that the Marshall Independent seeks access to the same basic information on a daily or weekly basis.
In his response, Mr. Murphy did not directly address the issue as stated. He asserted the Medical Center's present policy is that when a person comes to the main desk and requests directory information, those data are henceforth delivered. He wrote, All that is necessary is that a person stand at the front desk and request the information. It appears Mr. Murphy is suggesting that the only way for directory information to be accessed from the Medical Center is for requestors to physically make their requests at the front desk. If this, indeed, is the Medical Center's policy, it is not in compliance with Chapter 13, which does not require that requests for government data be made in person. The question, however, raised by Mr. Anfinson is whether Chapter 13 imposes upon government entities a duty to respond to standing requests for data. While Chapter 13 does not explicitly address the issue of standing requests for access to data, it does set forth quite clearly the obligations imposed upon a request to a responsible authority. (See Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3.) Based on the broadness of this language, it is the Commissioner's opinion that a standing request is similar to a singular request, regardless of whether it arrives, for example, in person, by mail, by fax, or by telephone, and regardless of whether a person makes a standing request or chooses to make her/his requests one at a time. Therefore, based on the language in Section 13.03, government entities are required to follow the requirements set forth in Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to standing requests for access to government data. However, in the instance of a standing request, it is reasonable for a government entity to require that there be periodic verification that the requestor is still interested in gaining access to the data.
To address the second issue, it is necessary to examine a portion of Section 13.42, subdivision 2. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13.42, subdivision 2, state:
As Mr. Anfinson noted in his opinion request, the 1996 Minnesota Legislature amended Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), so that in the case of a person committed pursuant to legal commitment, directory information are public while the person is in the hospital, but the data become private after the person is discharged. The Legislature did not amend Subdivision 2 (b). Mr. Anfinson asserted that the Medical Center's current policy is to treat all directory information about patients who were discharged as private data. In his response, Mr. Murphy cites the new language in Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), and stated, If the directory information is private on individuals, then the public hospital is bound to treat said data as private and therefore is bound not to release it to anybody. Thus, when the patient leaves the hospital, the data can no longer be released. As Mr. Murphy has asserted, pursuant to Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (a), directory information on discharged persons who were patients pursuant to public commitment are private data. The remaining issue is the classification of directory information relating to patients who were not publicly committed. As Section 13.42, subdivision 2 (b), states, in the case of patients other than those pursuant to public commitment, directory information on the patient is public unless the patient requests otherwise. The key, here, is the word patient. It is the Commissioner's opinion that when a person leaves a hospital, s/he is no longer a patient. Therefore, while the person is a patient (or remains hospitalized), directory information about that person is public, unless s/he requests otherwise. Once that person is discharged, the data become private. 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: November 6, 1996
|
Requests for data
Standing requests
Tennessen warning
Directory information
Standing requests for data
