### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A pr il 13, 200 9 S es sio n JOHN P . K ONV ALIN KA v. C HAT TAN OOGA -HA MILTO N

COU NTY HOSP ITAL AU THOR ITY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 08-0334 Howe ll N. Peoples, Chancellor

No. E2008-02091-COA- R3-CV - FILED JUNE 2, 2009

Jo hn P. K on va lin ka

(“ Pe tit ion e r”) fi led a pe tit ionfo r a c c e ss t o p ub lic re c or ds se e kin g a c c e ss t o certain rec ords in the possession of the Chattanooga -Ha milton C ounty Hospital Author i ty (“the Ho sp ita l” or

“ Erla ng e r” ). Th e se do c ume nts we rec re a te d p ur su a nt t o th e pr ov isi on s o f a Cor po rate Integrity Agr eeme nt entere d into be tween the Hospital and the fe dera l Officeof Inspe ctor Ge nera l of the De partment of H ealth and H uman Service s following an i n v es t i gation into allegations of ill eg al conduct by the H ospital. The Hospital filed a motion for pr otective or der c laiming the reque sted documents were confidential and protec ted from disclosure pursuant to: (1) the Tenne ssee Pu b li c Re c o r d s A c t; ( 2 ) th e f e d e r a l Fr e e d o m o f I n f

o r mati o n A c t; a n d/o r ( 3 ) f e d e r a l r egulations implemented by the De partment of H ealth and Hu m an Servic es. The T rial Court found that the documents we re pr otected f rom disclosure by the Tenne ssee Public Rec ords Act; specific ally, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504( a)( 2)(A)

. This f inding r ender ed moot whe ther the doc uments wereprotec ted from disclosure pursuant to either or both the Free dom of Information A ct or the r egulations develope d by the Depa

rtment of Hea lth and Human Servic es. Petitioner appe als. We hold that the documents at issue are not pr otected from disclosure by the Tenne ssee Public Records Ac t, and the judgment of the Tria l Court holding ot herw ise is vacated. We remand this ca se to the Tria l Court fo r a de te rm in ati on of

wh e the r the do c ume nts a t is su e arepr ote c te d f ro m di sc los ur e pu rs ua nt t o applicable fede ral law

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Chancery Court

Vacat ed; Case R emanded
D. M I CHAEL S W I NEY , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER S CHEL P. F R ANKS , P.J., and C H A RL ES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., joined.
Mathew D . Brownfield a nd Mark W . Litchford, Chattanooga , Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, John P. Konvalinka. Joseph R. White, Fred H. Moor e, and James H. Payne, Chattanooga , Tenne ssee, f or the Appellee , Chattanooga-H amilton Count y Hospital Authority.Req ues t N o. 17 and Req ues t N o. 41 appear t o r equest t he s am e i nfor m at i on
. I n hi s bri ef on app eal , Pet i t i on er 1

a c k n o w le d g e s th a t t h e se tw o re q u e sts d o in fa c t re q u e st th e sa m e d o c u m e n ts. -2- OP IN ION
Bac kgr ound
Th e do c u m e n t s a t i s s u e i n t h i s P u b l i c R e c o r d s A c t c a s e h a v e t h e i r g e n e s i s f r om a fe de ra l a ndstate inv e sti gatio n s ur ro un din g a lle gatio ns that th e Ho sp ita l su bmi tte d f a lse cla im s to Medica re and Medica id and improperly paid remuner ation to physicians for refe rring patients to the Hospital. The Hospital eventually enter ed int o settlement agre ements with both the fede ral Of fice of Inspector Genera l of t he Department of Hea lth and Human Service s and the State of Tenne ssee. In addition to the settlement agre ements, the Hospital ente red into a Corpor ate I ntegrity Agre ement with the Offic e of I nspector G ener al of the D ep ar t m en t of He alth and Human Services. The Corporate Integrity Agr eeme nt was design ed to promote c ompliance with the a pplicable statutes and re gu lations

. Am ong o the r thin gs , th e Cor po rate In te grity Ag re e me nt r e qu ir e d th e Ho sp ita l to establish and maintain a c ompliance pr ogram, whic h included the c re at i on of a c ompliance committee.
In Ma

r c h2 0 0 8 , Pe titioner serve d a re quest for a cce ss to public recor ds on the Hospital seeking a cce ss to fifty-thre e separate groups of documents. Only three of the fif ty-three reque sts are at issue in this appeal. The se threereque sts are:

(12) Copies of all compliance reports submit ted to the Compliance Commi ttee since the 2005 settlement betwe en Chattanooga Hamilton County Hospit al Au thority and the United States Federa l Governme nt/United States Justi ce D epartment; . . . (17) Copies of all minutes f rom all meetings of the Er l anger Medica l Center’s C o m pliance Committee for the past four year s; . . . [and] (41) Copies of all minutes fr o m all meetings of Erlange r’s Compli anceCommi ttee for the past four

(4) ye ars. . . . 1
Af te r the Ho sp ital re fu se d to pr ov idethe se thr e e gr ou ps of re qu e ste d d oc ume nts , Petitioner filed a Petition f or Acc ess to Public Records with the Trial Court. Petiti oner c laimed that the Hospital lacke d a good faith basis upon which to deny the publi c records re quest. Petitioner re qu e ste d th e Tria l Court issu e a sh ow -c aus e or de r re qu iring the Ho sp ita l to app e ar andsh ow c aus e why the petition should not be granted. Petitioner f urther r equeste d the Trial Court e nter a n order requiring the H ospital to produce the r ecor ds and aw ard Petitioner his attorne y fee s.

The Hospital filed a

Motion for P ro t ec t ive Orde r pertaining to the three doc ument re qu e sts . The Ho sp ita l c la ime d th a t th e re c or ds a t is su e we repr ote c te d f ro m di sc los ur e pu rs ua nt t o-3-

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 10-7-504(a )(2) (A) and (a )(5) (A). I n addition, the Hospital claimed that several fede ral statutes a nd regulations protected the disclosure of these documents, including 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)( 4) and ( b)(7) , as we ll as various subparts of 45 C.F.R . §§ 5.65(b)( 4) and 5.68.

Petitioner responde d to the motion for protec tive order , asserting that severa l of the statut e s a ndre gu latio ns c ite d by the Ho sp ita l did not app ly to the re qu e ste d d oc ume nts a nd , e ve n if they did, they did not operate to preve nt disclosure of the r equeste d documents.

Following a hearing on the m o t i on for pr otective or der, the Trial Court enter ed a de ta ile d M e mor a nd um O pin iona ndOr de r. Ac c or din g to theTria l Co urt:

InOc tob e r 2 00 5, [the Ho sp ita l] e nte re d in to a Cor po rate Int e g r ity A g r e e me n t ( “ CI A ” ) a n d a Se tt le me n t A g r e e me n t w ith the Offic e of the Inspec tor Gene ral of the Depa rtment o f He alth and Human Servic es (“ OIG” ). . . . [The Hospital] also at this time ente red into a Settlement Agree ment with the State of Tenne ssee. The CIA require s heightened internal scrutiny and inve stigation of pot en tial pr ob le ms, de ta ile d r e po rt ing of the re su lts of

the se inv e sti gatio ns to OIG, an d the detailed notific ation of OIGof any “ investigation or legal proc eeding . . . br ought by a governmental entity

. . . involving a n a lle gatio n th a t Erla ng e r ha s c omm itt e d a c ri me or ha d e ng a ge d in fraudulent activities.”
* * *
A. Re le va nt

Te r ms of

th e CI A
Un de r the CI A, [ th e Ho sp ita l] is r e qu ir e d to fo rm a Compli anceCommi ttee to monitor compliance wi th the CIA and report directly to the OIG , as we ll as establish a Disclosure Program to allow for e mployee disclosure of potential issues with or questions about [the H ospital’s] compliancewith civil, cr i m inal or administrative law. . . . The CIA re quired Erlanger to cre ate a

Code of Conduct setting f

orth, among other things, “ the require ment t h at all of [Erlanger ’s officers, directors, agents and employees] shall be expec ted to report to the Compli ance Offic er
. . . suspected violations of any Federal health car e progr am re quirements or of Erlange r’s own Pol ic ie s a ndPr oc e du re s. ” Li ke wi se , the C od e of Co nd uc t ha d to contain a “co mmitm ent to nonreta liation and to maintain, as appropriate, confi d en tialit y and anonym ity with respect to such dis c los ur e s. ” . . . (e mphasis added)
The DisclosureProgra m u n d er the CIA had to a llow for a
m ec h anism through which individuals could report, with an expec tation of anonymity an d c o n f id e n ti ali ty, any potential violations-4- of law. . . . Like the C ompliance Committee’s Code of Conduct, the Disclosure Program had to e mphasize the protec tion of “anonymous communications for w hich appropriate confidentiali t y shall be maintained .” (e mphasis added) These anonymous and conf idential reports, once re ceive d via the Disclosure Progr am, wer e given to the Compli ance Offic er. The Compliance O ffice r is require d under the CIA to perf

orm an investi gation of all such reports, and to kee p a log containing the re ports themselves along with “the sta t u s of the respe ctive interna l review s, and any c orre ctive ac tion taken. . . .”
Th e CI A a lso re qu ir e s th a t Erla ng e r su bmi t a nn ua l r e po rt s to OIG “ with respec t to the status of, and findings rega rding, Erlange r’s compliance activities. . . .” The se re ports must cont ai n a variety of information, including a summary of “Reporta ble Events” ( e.g. po te nti a l vi olatio ns of

la w) , a ndc or

re c tiv e a c tio n taken in re sp on se to a violation or other issue, a summary of the Dis closure Progr am’s log, a summary of “ any ongoing i n v es tigation or legal proc eeding” against the hospital that it is required to re port under the CIA. . . .
B. Te xt

and P ur pos e of

th e St at ut or y Ex c lusi ons
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503( a), “ all state, county a nd municipal re co rd s
. . . shall at all times . . . be open f or per sonal inspection by any c itizen of Te nnessee , and those in ch arge of such re c or ds sh a ll no t re fu se su c h righ t of ins pe c tio n to a ny c iti z e n, un le ss oth e rw ise pr ov ide d b y s tate la w. ” Th e statut e do e s, ho we ve r, lim it i ts oth e rw ise br oa d a

pp lic abil ity wi th a

nu mbe r o f e xc e pti on s f

or c e rt a in confide ntial rec ords. One of the m ost pertinent exceptions i n relation to this case provide s that, “[a ]ll investigative rec ords of . . . the of fice of inspector

gener al .

. . shall be tre ated a s confidential and shall not be open to inspec tion by members o f t h e p ublic. The information c on ta ine d insu c h r e c or ds sh a ll b e dis c los e d to thepu bli c on ly i n compliance with a subpoena or an or der of

a court of rec ord.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 10-7- 504(a) (2)( A). [The Hospital] ar gues that this exce ption applies to the three rec ords re quests at issue here bec ause the re r ecor ds were“gene rate d, compiled and reported pursuant to the require ments of the CIA a s part of the ongoing investigation by and settlement negotiations with the OIG.”

. . . [The H ospital] also asserts it was “per forming investigative functions on beha lf of and at the reque st of the OIG ,” a ndthat th e pr od uc ts o f the se inv e sti gativ e ac tiv iti e s a rec le arl y exempted f

rom disclosure unde r t h e s t atut e. . . . Petitioner, on the other ha nd, argue s merely that this exc epti on is inapplicable to the reque sted rec ords in this case bec ause [ the Hospital] “c ites no-5- authori ty for its po sit ionthat it is n ow a n a ge nt o f the OI G, ” a ndis there fore not entitled to confidentiality protections und er the statute. . . . While it is true that [the H ospital] does notprovide a ny evidenc e or a

rgument to support t h e ex i stence of an a gency relationship, P etitioner fails t o re s p ond to the basic import of [the Hospital’s] ar gument here : viz. t hat t he compliance records at issue ar e i n e f f e c t“ i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e c o r d s o f t h e O I G ” u n d e r

t h e p l a in la ng ua ge of

the statut e . [T he Ho sp ita l] , und e r the CI A, is r e sp on sib le with providing compliance and other investigative r ecor ds to the OIG. Thestatute clea

rly protec ts such documents – “all investigative re c or ds

. . . o f the of

fi c e of the i ns pe c tor

ge ne ra l” – a s c on fi de nti a l, and exe mpts them from public disclosure.
If the statute did not so provide, and instead only prote cted re c or ds in the po sse ssi on of theOI G ( su c h r e qu ir e me nt is not in Tenn. Code An n
. § 10-7-504( a)( 2)(A) ), the prote ctions provided by the statut e wo uld bemoo t. P art ie s se e kin g th e pr od uc tio n o f o the rw ise protec ted re cords in the hands of the OI G could simpl y by-pass the OIG a ltogether a nd demand rec ords from all those public entities that pr ov idetheOI G w ith th e con te nts of the ir inv e sti gativ e re c or ds

. Surely the legislature could not have intended s uch illusory c on fi de nti a lit y p ro te c tio ns fo r tho se c a te go ri e s o f r e c or ds the y c ho se specific ally to exempt from the br oad applica bility of the statute.
C. Confidentiality an d the Efficacy of the CIAs
Infu rthe r s up po rt

of its po sit ionthat th e reis g oo d c aus e to protec t as confide ntial the contents of the Com p liance Committee reports, and the re cords of the Commit tee mee ting min utes, [the Ho sp ita l] c ite s a

fe de ra l c a se fr om the No rthe rnDi stric t of Ca lif ornia wher e the district court elaborates upon the confide ntial nature of the CI A d oc ume nts :
On c e a n e nti ty en te rs int o a CI A, theCI A typ ic a lly require s the subject entity to adopt m easur es designed to p ro mot e c omp lianc e , a nd to s ub mit a nn ua l r e po rt s and docume nts addressing the r equire m ents of the CI A, inc lud ing th e res ult s o f a ud its a ndre vie ws
. These type s o f documents often include c onfidential o r proprieta

ry information. Indeed, a fre quent conce rn raised by the subject e ntities during negotiation of the CIA is what type of protec tion the-6- governme nt will extend to the su b j ect entity’s confide ntial and proprie tary information.
Hersh & Hersh v . U.S. Dept. o f Health and Human Se rvice s , 2008 U. S. D ist

. LE XI S 26 23 7, a t *1 8 ( N. D. Ca l. M arc h 3 1, 20 08 ). W hil e the party seeking disclosure in He rsh & H e rsh did s o under the fede ral F ree dom of Information Act, unlike the c ase sub judice , th is court re cognize s the validity of the district court’s c hara cterization of the compliancedocuments compiled under the CIA. The func tion of the compliancereports is to aid the OIG in its oversight of [the Hospital], and to likewise facilitate and enable full disclosure in the administration of the CIA.
The Petitioner cl aim s that “[ne ither the CIA nor the settlement agre ements have ] any pr ovision mandating there be confide ntiality of the re quested pu b l i c records.” . . . This assertion see ms, under the plain language of the CIA, patently false. The CIA in this case does in fac t call, on more than one occasion, for the confide ntiality of the reque sted documents. The CIA explicitly states that the disclosures in the compliance reports should be kept with “conf id enti ality and anonymity” wher e appr opriate, and th at for disclosures made to the Compli a nc e Of

fi c er via theDi sc los ur e Pr og ram “ app ro priate c on fi de nti a lit y s ha ll b e ma int a ine d. ”

. . . So n ot o nly arethec on te nts of the c ompliance r eports conf idential on their face , per the He rsh court’s c hara cterization, but they are specifically designate d as such under the language of the CIA.
Com pe lli ng dis c los ureof

thes e do cum ent s w ou ld hamp e r b oth [the Ho sp ita l’ s] abil ity to c omp ly w ith the CI A an d OI G’ s a bil ity to rely on the completeness of [the Hospital’s] reports. [The H ospital], a ndoth e r e nti tie s a c tin g p ur su a nt t o CI As , mu st f eel free to fu lly disclose information to the OI G. If e ntities are not conf ident that the c on te nt s of the ir

dis c los ur e wi ll r e ma in c on fi de nti a l on c e it i s prepa red f or the OI G, their willin g n es s to comply fully with CIAs wi ll gr e a tly de c re a se . Lik e wi se , th e e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f the OI G’ s e ff orts to overseeand re gulate t h e hea lth care industry through the use of CIAs will be negativ el y i m pacte d if the re gulated entities ar e persistently conc erne d that the information they c ompile for compliance is subject to public disclosure.
The Protec tive Orde r at issue only applies to three of the fiftythr e e do c ume nt r e qu e sts in the c ur re nt c a se , a ndwo uldno t li mit Petitioner’s discovery beyond excluding specifica lly the Compl iance Commi ttees’ c ompliance r eports and t h e record of the Compli ance Commi ttee’s minutes. (c itations to t he re cord omitted)-7- Fo l l o wi ng entry of the memorandum opinion, Petitioner appea led and a rgues on appea l that the Trial Court e rre d when it c oncluded that the rec ords did not have to beproduce d. The specific issues raised by Petitioner a re:
I. Did the Trial Court er r in holding that the reque sted compliance reports and rec ords were not obt ainable dueto an e xc e pti on to the Te nn e sse e Pub lic Re c or ds Ac t?
II. Did the Trial Court er r in holding that the reque sted compliance reports and rec ords wer e investigative re cords of theOf fi c e of In sp e c tor Ge ne ra l?
III

. Did the Trial Court er r by not requiring production of re da c te d c omp lianc e re po rt s a ndre c or ds ? The Hospital ar gues that the Trial Court was corre ct when it found that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504( a)( 2)(A) protec ted the re cords f rom disclosure. The Hospital further argue s that even if Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-504( a)( 2)(A) does not apply, the re cords ne verthe less are protec ted from disclosure p u rs u an t to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7- 504(a) (5)( A) a s well as applica ble fe dera l statutes and re gulations.
Discussion

The fa cts in this cas e are undisputed. The appea l involves matters of statutory interpre tation, which pre sent questions of law. With respe ct to le gal issues, our revie w is conducte d “under a pure de novo standard of revie w, acc ording no defe renc e to the conc lusions of law made by the lower

courts.” Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ. , 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001)

.

Te nn . Co de An n. § 1 0- 7- 50 4( a )( 2) (A ) p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: All investigative rec ords of theT e n n essee bureau of investigation, the
o f f i ce of inspector general , a ll c r im in a l i n v e s ti g a ti v e f il e s o f the department of agric u lture and the department of environment and c on se rv a tio n, a ll c ri min a l in ve sti gativ e files of themot or

ve hic le enfor ceme nt divisi on of t h e depa rtment of saf

ety re lating to stol en vehicles or parts . . . shall be tre ated a s confidential and shall not be open to inspe ction by members of the public. The in formation c on ta ine d insu c h r e c or ds sh a ll b e dis c los e d to thepu bli c only i n compliance with a su b p o en a or an order of a c ourt of re cord; provided, howe ver, that such investigative rec ords of the Tennessee bureau of investigation shall be open t o inspection by elec ted members of

the gene ral assembly if such inspec tion is di rec ted by a duly adopted res o l u t i on of either house or of

a standing or joint committee of e ither house. . . . ( emphasis adde d)-8- The issue a s t o whether

the above quoted statute applies is this case depends on whether , as the Hospital claims, “the of fice of inspector

gener al” include s or is ref erring to both the state and f

eder al Off

ice of Inspec tor Gene rals. Petitioner claims that this statute only applies to the state Of fi c e of In sp e c tor Ge ne ra l, andbe c aus e theCor po rate In te grity Ag re e me nt w a s e nte re d in to betwee n the Hospital and the f eder al Off

ice of Inspec tor Gene ral, the statute simply has no bearing on this case. In 2004, the Te nnessee Gene ral Asse mbly created the Of fice of TennCa

re I nspector Gene ral wh i ch was to “focus solely on the pre vention and dete ction of fr aud and a buse in the TennCar e progr am” See 20 04 Te nn . Pu b. Ac ts Ch. 67 3. At thesa me tim e , th e Pub lic Re c or ds Ac t, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10- 7-504(a )(2) , was a mended to exem p t from disclosure “[a ]ll investigative rec ords of the O fficeof TennCa re I nspector G ener al . . . .” See 2004 Tenn. Pub. Ac ts Ch. 6 73. Thereis no question that at that point in t ime, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504( a)( 2) re fer red only to a State entity, i.e., the Off

ice of TennCar e Ins p ec t o r Ge n era l, as there clea rly is no corre sponding fede ral a gency be aring that pa rticular name. In 2005, the Gene ral Assembly amende d the rele vant statute perta ining to the Office of TennCar e Inspec tor Gene ral a nd, among other things, forma lly changed the name of the “Of fice of TennCa

re I nspector G ener al” to “O fficeof Inspe ctor Ge nera l.” See 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 474. Contemporaneous wi t h t h i s change , the Public Records Ac t was ame nded by “de leting the words ‘O fficeof TennCa re In s p ector Gene ral’ w here ver the y appea r in the part and substituti ng instead the wor ds ‘Off

ice of Inspec tor Gene ral.’” See 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 474. As stated, it is clear to this Court that in 2004, the Tenne ssee Ge nera l Assembly was ref erring only to the St ate Of fice of TennCa

re I ns p ec t o r Ge nera l in Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7- 50 4( a )( 2) (A ). W e fu rthe r c on c lud e that the Ge ne ra l Asse mbl y co nti nu e d to re fe r onl y to th e State entity when the statute w as ame nded in 2005 simply to reflec t the name c hange f rom “Of fice of TennCar e Inspe ctor Ge nera l” t o “Of fice of Inspector Genera l.” In short, we agre e with Petitioner that the Gene ral Assembly was not r efe rring to the fede ral Of fice of Inspe ctor Ge nera l in Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504( a)( 2)(A) , and the de cision of the Tria l Court on this issue is rever sed.

The ne xt issue is whether the rec ords are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Tenn. Cod e An n. § 1 0- 7- 50 4( a )( 5) (A ). Th e re le va nt p ortio n o f this statut e pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: (5) (A ) T he fo llo wi ng bo ok s, re c or ds a ndoth e r m a te ri a ls in the possession of the offic e o f the attorney ge neral and reporter which relate to any pending or contemplated le gal or a dminist rative proce eding in which the of fice of the attorney gene ra l an d reporter may be involved sha ll not be open for public inspe ction: (i) Books, rec ords or other material s which ar e conf idential or privi le ge d b y s tate la w; (ii ) Bo o k s , r e c o r d s o r

o th e r mate r ia ls r e lati n g to in v e s ti g a ti o ns c on du c te d b y fe de ra l la w e nf or c e me nt o r f

e de ra l r e gu latory a ge nc ie s,Thi s co n cl u si o n is r ei nf or ce d by Tenn. Code Ann. § 10- 7- 504( a) ( 5) ( A ) ( v) w hi ch di s cus s es di s cl os ur e of 2 d o c u m e n ts th a t a re “ in th e p o sse ssio n ” o f b o th th e T e n n e sse e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l an d a n o th e r d e p a rtm e n t o r a g e n c y . T h is
se c tio n w o u ld m a k e a b so lu te ly n o se n se if p o sse ssio n d id n o t m e a n p h y sic a l p o sse ssio n
.

45 C. F. R. § 5. 65 addr es s es conf i dent i al i t y of

t r ade s ec r et s a nd c onfi dent i al i nf or m at i on of t he D epa r t m ent 3 of H ea l t h a nd H um an Se r vi ce s
. Thi s r egul at i on pr ovi d es t h at i nf or m at i on i s “ conf i dent i al ” i f

i t m ee t s one of

t he fo l l o w i n g d efin i t i o n s:

( i ) D i s cl os ur e m ay i m pai r t he gover nm ent ’ s abi l i t y t o obt ai n ne ce s s ar y i nf or m at i on in th e fu tu re ; ( i i ) D i s cl os ur e w oul d s ubs t ant i al l y har m t he com pet i t i ve pos i t i on of t he per s on w ho
s ubm i t t ed t he i nf or m at i on; ( i i i ) D i s cl osur e w ou l d i m pai r ot her go vernm ent i n t er es t s , s uch as progra m effect i v en ess an d co m p l i an ce; or (iv ) D isc lo su re w o u ld i m p a ir o th e r p riv a te in te re sts, su c h a s a n in te re st in cont r ol l i ng a vai l abi l i t y of i nt r i ns i ca l l y va l uabl e r ec or ds , w hi ch ar e sol d i n t he (c o n tin u e d ...)

-9- which ar e conf

idential or privilege d u n d er f eder al law . . . . (empha sis added)
Onapp e a l, the Ho sp ita l a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e Te nn e sse e Attorne y Ge ne ra l is no t in physical possession of the reque sted documents. The Hospital argue s, howeve r, that “posse ssion” does not nec essarily mean physical possession. We need not de cid e i f “in t he possession” means more than a ctually physically poss essing the documents beca use we conclude , at a minimum, that the clea r langua ge of the statute requir es the Te nnessee Attor n ey Ge nera l to have ac tual physical possession of the docume nts in order for this e xception to a pply. There fore , we c onclude that Te nn. Code Ann. § 10-7- 504(a) (5)( A) doe s not apply in this case. 2

Although we conc lude that Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 10-7-504( a)( 2)(A) and (a )(5) (A) do not prohibit disclosure of the re quested doc uments, this does not end our inquiry. Al t h o ugh the Te nn e sse e Attorne y Ge ne ra l wa s invo lve d in this c a se , th e de ve lop me nt o f the Cor po rate In te grity Agre ement wa s done throug h t h e federal Of fice of Inspe ctor Ge nera l. The fe dera l Officeof Inspec tor Gene ral is ce rtainly at liberty to provide that certain doc uments gener ated pur suant to the Corporat e I n te g rity A g r e e me n t a r e c o n f id e n ti a l c o n s is te n t w ith th e p r o v is io n s o f th e Fr e e d o m of In fo rm a tio n A c t a nd

/or there gu latio ns a do pte d b y th e De pa rt me nt o f H e a ltha ndHu ma n Se rv ic e s. The Of fice of Inspe ctor Gene ral’s ability to do that is not elimi nated simply beca use the a gree ment is entere d into with a state governme ntal entity suc h as the Hospital. In such a situation, fe dera l law could very well prohibit disclosure of the se docume nts even if state law does not.

Th e Ho s p i tal argue s that the reque sted documents ar e prote cted f rom disclosure pursuant to exc eptions contained in the Freedom of I nformation Ac t, 5 U.S.C. § 522(b), as well as regul at i o n s implemented by the De partment of H ealth and H uman Service s addre ssing confide ntiality of certain documents, including 45 C.F.R . §§ 5.65 and 5.68. The Trial Court never 3(

. . . cont i nued) 3

m a rk e t b y th e ir o w n e r.
4 5 C

. F.R

. § 5

. 6 5 (b)(4). -10- addre ssed whethe r the doc uments at i s s u e i n this case we re c onfidential under fede ral law as that issue was re ndere d moot once the Trial Court concluded, inc orre ctly, that the documents we re pr ote c te d f

ro m di sc los ur e un de r T e nn . Co de An n. § 1 0- 7- 50 4( a )( 2) (A ). Be c aus e the se do c ume nts are not in the rec ord bef

ore us, wecannot de termine if they a re c onfidential under

applicable fede ral law. The ref

ore, w e re mand this case to the T rial Court for a determination as to whether a ll or any portions of the re quested docu m en t s are protec ted from disclosure pursuant to either fede ral statute(s) or

fede ral re gulation(s).
Conclusion The judgment of t h e Trial Court is vacated and this case is re manded to the Trial Court for further proc eedings c onsiste n t with this Opini on and for collection of the costs below. Costs on appeal ar e taxe d to the Appellee , the Chattanooga- Hamilton County Hospit al Authority.

___________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWI NEY, JUDG E