Case Title: Cuyahoga County Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Group

Citation: 2016-Ohio-556

Docket Number: 2014-0223

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Heath v. Lipson O’Shea Legal Group, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-556.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-556 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, APPELLANT, v. LIPSON O’SHEA 
LEGAL GROUP, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Heath v. Lipson O’Shea Legal Group, 
Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-556.] 
Public records―R.C. 149.43―County board of health―Request for board’s 
records of county residences where minor child was found to have elevated 
lead 
levels 
in 
blood―Protected 
health 
information―R.C. 
3701.17―Address of afflicted child is protected health information exempt 
from release―Cause remanded to trial court for review of requested 
records to determine what information can be released after all protected 
health information is redacted.  
(No.  2014-0223—Submitted May 19, 2015—Decided February 18, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 99832,  
2013-Ohio-5736. 
_______________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
PFEIFER, J. 
BACKGROUND 
{¶ 1} In 2012, Michael J. O’Shea, a principal of appellee, Lipson O’Shea 
Legal Group, made the following request for records from appellant, Cuyahoga 
County Board of Health (“Cuyahoga County BOH”): 
 
Pursuant to RC 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act), I hereby request 
documentation or information of all homes in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 
2011 in Cuyahoga County where a minor child was found to have 
elevated blood lead levels in excess of 10 mg/DI [sic, mg/d1]. 
 
{¶ 2} After identifying the relevant responsive information, which it claims 
comprises approximately 5,000 pages, Cuyahoga County BOH determined that it 
was prohibited from providing the information to Lipson O’Shea. To confirm its 
conclusion, Cuyahoga County BOH sought a declaratory judgment in the court of 
common pleas with respect to “its status, duty, obligations and/or requirements to 
maintain the confidentiality of the records sought” by Lipson O’Shea.  It submitted 
to the court 12 sample files as representative examples of the requested records for 
the court’s in camera review. 
{¶ 3} Cuyahoga County BOH moved for summary judgment.  Upon review 
of the records, the trial court concluded that release of the records is prohibited by 
R.C. 3701.17, which exempts from disclosure certain health information if the 
individual is identified or if the information could be used to reveal the individual’s 
identity.  The court found that the requested records, even if redacted, could be used 
to reveal the identities of the individual children.  The trial court ruled that release 
of the records was thus prohibited by state law within the meaning of R.C. 
149.43(A)(1)(v) by virtue of the application of R.C. 3107.17.  Therefore, the court 
granted summary judgment to Cuyahoga County BOH. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 4} The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court’s 
“blanket exemption” was inappropriate because many of the records, even those 
that contain “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.  Accordingly, the 
court of appeals determined that the trial court had erred in granting summary 
judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 
{¶ 5} Cuyahoga County BOH appealed to this court.  We accepted 
jurisdiction on the following proposition of law:  “Information in the Custody of a 
Board of Health or the Ohio Department of Health that Either Identifies an 
Individual or Could Be Used to Ascertain that Individual’s Identity is Exempt from 
Disclosure under the Public Records Act Absent the Individual’s Consent.”  139 
Ohio St.3d 1474, 2014-Ohio-3012, 11 N.E.3d 1195. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, which governs the 
availability of public records for inspection and copying, states that upon request, 
“all public records responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made 
available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular 
business hours.”  R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  We have stated that the fundamental policy 
of R.C. 149.43 “is to promote open government, not restrict it.”  State ex rel. Besser 
v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396, 398, 732 N.E.2d 373 (2000), citing State ex 
rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ., 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, 680 NE.2d 956 
(1997).  Although this policy inclines us to liberally interpret public-records 
requests in favor of disclosure, it is not automatically dispositive.  Release may be 
prohibited by an exception or by another statute providing protection to the subject 
of the information sought. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 7} R.C. 3701.17(B) prohibits the release of “[p]rotected health 
information reported to or obtained by” public-health authorities without the 
written consent of the individual who is the subject of the record, unless certain 
conditions are met.  “Protected health information” is information that “describes 
an individual’s past, present, or future physical or mental status or condition, receipt 
of treatment or care, or purchase of health products” when either of the following 
two conditions applies:  (1) the information “reveals the identity of the individual 
who is the subject of the information” or (2) the information “could be used to 
reveal the identity of the individual who is the subject of the information.”  R.C. 
3701.17(A)(2)(a) and (b).  Thus, to be protected, the information must first of all 
describe an individual’s “physical or mental status or condition, receipt of treatment 
or care, or purchase of health products.”  The proposition of law before us, as 
framed by Cuyahoga County BOH, addresses only the two subordinate conditions 
without mentioning the predominant requirement, that the information must be 
“protected health information.”  The argument in support of the proposition, 
however, addresses this crucial point, and so we proceed to the merits of that larger 
question. 
{¶ 8} In another context (related not to R.C. 3701.17 but to the federal 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act1), we concluded that lead-
contamination notices issued by a city health department did not reveal “health 
information” merely because they referred to “a child”―unnamed―whose blood 
test indicated an elevated lead level.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Daniels, 
108 Ohio St.3d 518, 2006-Ohio-1215, 844 N.E.2d 1181.  In that situation, the 
notices were sent to property owners to apprise them of “violations relating to lead 
                                                 
1  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub.L. No. 104-191, 
110 Stat. 1936, codified as amended in various sections of Titles 18, 26, 29, and 42 of the United 
States Code. 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
hazards” and did not contain any information about “medical examination, 
assessment, diagnosis, or treatment of any medical condition” of any individual.  
Id. at ¶ 16.  The notices did contain what we termed a “mere nondescript reference 
to ‘a’ child with ‘an’ elevated lead level,” which we concluded was not protected 
health information.  Id. 
{¶ 9} Despite some similarity to the Cincinnati Enquirer case, we reach a 
different conclusion because the public-records request in this case is inextricably 
linked to “protected health information.” 
{¶ 10} The request seeks “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].”  By linking the request to specific blood lead levels, 
Lipson O’Shea has made it impossible for Cuyahoga County BOH to comply 
without disclosing information that undeniably describes an individual’s “physical 
or mental status or condition” within the meaning of R.C. 3701.17(A)(2).  
Therefore, the information requested is protected health information if it identifies 
or can be used to identify the individual who is the subject of the protected health 
information.  It is undeniable that the address of a home where a child has an 
elevated blood lead level can be used to identify the afflicted child.  Even if it were 
possible to comply with the request by redacting protected health information, the 
release of merely the address of a house in response to the public-records request 
at issue means that a child at the house had “elevated blood lead levels in excess of 
10 [mg/dl],” which is protected health information.  Still, it is possible that some of 
the information in the records prepared by the Cuyahoga County BOH is not 
protected health information.  Neither this court, the court of appeals, nor the trial 
court has reviewed all of the records, so we cannot categorically state that all of the 
information responsive to the request is protected. 
{¶ 11} The real problem in this case is the public-records request itself.  It 
seeks records specifically related to a person’s physical status or condition.  Lipson 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
O’Shea states in its brief that there are documents responsive to its request that do 
not contain protected health information, specifically, “lead hazard violation 
notices, risk-assessment reports, Health Dept. correspondence with landlords, and 
lead abatement certifications.”  If that is the case, Lipson O’Shea should have 
requested access to those documents, not to documents related to homes “where a 
minor child was found to have elevated blood lead levels in excess of 10 [mg/dl].” 
{¶ 12} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian R. 
Gutkowski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
Lipson O’Shea Legal Group, Michael J. O’Shea, and Ronald A. Annotico, 
for appellee. 
_________________