Mirth 1, 1974 

The Honorable Raymond W. Vowel1 

Commiaaioner 

Opinion No. H- 249 

State Department of Public Welfare 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Tcue 78701 

Rc: Whether inquirer in 

entitled to hie own recorde 

with State Department of 

Public Welfare under Article 

6252-17,x, V. T. Ci S. 

Dear Commisrjoner Vowell: 

You have requested the opinion of our office on the question: 

‘Kkn the State Department of Public Welfare, 

without violating Houre Bill 6, Acte of the 63rd 

Legielature, Regular Session. 1973, refuse the 

requert of a client’thrt he receive a copy of hir 

complete cane records? If not, are there 

rtrndardr by which the Department may determine 

what informrtion muet be rupplied to the client, ., . 

and/or is there information which the Departmant 

may or murt excluda from the client’e 4~~44~7” 

Various fader81 and etate welfare statutae generally rertrict the 

availability of welfare files to perronr having a direct connection with the 

l dminirtration of tha plan, 42 USC $ 5 302 (-a)(7), 1202(e)(9), 1306(a), 1352 

(a)(9), 1396(a)(7) and 602(a)(9); 38 USC 6 3301; Articles 695c, 5 33(l), (2); 

695j-L 5 10, Vernon’s Tax44 Civil Statutes. Under theaa, variou type. of 

informationire’ m&de “information deemcd confidential by law,“*ti.@r’e 

hcsptad’froh mmidtitory diekloiui’c wder :13(r)(t) of t% -OpSln:Rd,cords kw. 

Section 7 of the Act aete out the procedure to ba followcd by your 

Department when you are requeated to make information public. 1) If 

there ir l previous dcterminat&n by a court or by our office tbt the inform Y.‘: 

p. 1159 

,,.‘, 
. 

.* 

.I. 

. . 

The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (H-249) 

mation falls within one of the exceptions, disclosure of the information 

normally should be refused. 2) If there is a previous determination that 

information is public or if the Department entertaina no doubt 8~ to the 

stbtul of informbtion as public it should dirclose it. 3) Where there ir no 

previous determination.and the Department considers the information to be 

excepted from the Act or reasonably concludes that the informbtion probably 

is except, it “must” request a decision from our office specifying the 

exception which the department believes may apply. 

The answer to the first part of your question than is that the Stats 

Department of Public Welfare may refuse the request of a client that he 

receive a copy of his complete ca.se record without violating the Open Records 

Act to the extent that it ~has been or is detsrmined that the information refused 

is within one of the exceptions of 5 3 of the Open Racords Act. The complete 

record may not be refused, however. just because portionr of it may be excepted. 

and any portions which are madc public information by the Act rhould be disclosed 

Your letter requesting our opinion,advises that current departmental 

policy authorize* the. return to a client of such docurrients as he may have 

given to the department and wishes returned. (e.. g. birth certificatca) In our 

opinion the special interest of the recipient jusrifias returning these personal 

records to him without making them public under the Open Records Act. 

Furthermore,. the claimant may have a constitutional right, @side from, 

the Open Records Act; to review his opprt file when it has bean employed as the 

basin for a determination of his entitlement to benefits. 

In Greene v. McELroy. 360 U.S. 474 (1959), involving the loas of security 

cleabnce, Green had been denied access to “confidential” information upon 

which the decision was, in part, made. Speaking for the court, Chief Justice 

Wbrren raid: 

‘Xertiin principles have remained relatively 

immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is 

that whare governmental action seriously injures an 

individual, and the reasonablenaBs of the action 

depends on fact findings, the avidence used to prove 

p. 1160 
The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 3 (H-249) 

the Government’s case must be discloeed to the 

individual so that he has an opportunity to .ahow that 

it is untrue. ‘I (360 U. S. at 496)( emphasis added) 

This language was quoted and mada applicable to 8 determination of 

entitlement of welfare benefits in Goldberg v:. Kelly. 397 U.S. 254, 270 

(1970), where it was held that “Wslfare recipients must therefore be given 

an opportunity to confront and crons-examine the witnessen relied on by 

the department. ” 

We therefore answer the remainder of your question that, to the extent 

8 decision denying or awarding benefits or other rights to 8 welfar,e clicnt is 

based on information in his file, he is cntitled to review all information 

entering into the decision, whether it ir purely factual or not. This right is 

not dependent upon the Open Records Act, Article 6252-178, V. T. C. S. and 

its exccptionr do not apply. 

SUMMARY 

The Department of Public Welfare may refuse 

a client’s request for a copy bf his complete file only 

to the extant (1) t’he information har~not been ustd 

concurrently in the determination of ariy right of the 

client’s and (2) the information is excepted from the 

Open Rccordr Lrw. 

Aour very truly. 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

u Attorney Gensral of Talus 

Opinion Committea 

p, 1161