[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 leadcontamination 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. 

_________________