Opinion ID: 1860963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory bases for injunctive relief

Text: The purpose of Minn.St. 15.162 to 15.169, known as the Minnesota Data Privacy Act, is to control the state's collection, security, and dissemination of information in order to protect the privacy of individuals while meeting the legitimate needs of government and society for information. Minn.St. 15.169, subd. 3(3). To accomplish this purpose the law provides for the classification of data on individuals into three categories: confidential, private, and public. Confidential data on individuals is defined as data which is (a) made not public by statute or federal law applicable to the data and is inaccessible to the individual subject of that data   . Minn.St. 15.162, subd. 2a. Private data on individuals is data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. Minn.St. 15.162, subd. 5a. Public data on individuals means data which is accessible to the public in accordance with the provisions of section 15.17. Minn.St. 15.162, subd. 5b. These definitions require that classifications as confidential or private be made by statute or federal law applicable to the data. [4] Appellant cites no statute or federal law which makes the names of those receiving payments for abortion services provided to medical assistance patients or the amount of the payments received not public. [5] Therefore, this information is neither confidential nor private. Appellants nevertheless contend that the information is not public data on individuals because it does not fall within the definition of public records under Minn.St. 15.17. Minn.St. 15.17, subd. 1, requires all state agencies to make and keep all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. The statute then provides that [a]ll such public records shall be made on durable paper, but that they may be photographed, photostated, microphotographed, or microfilmed and that the reproductions may be substituted for the originals. Minn.St. 15.17, subd. 4, requires public record custodians to keep the records easily accessible for convenient use, and provides in part:    Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, he shall permit all public records in his custody to be inspected, examined, abstracted, or copied at reasonable times and under his supervision and regulation by any person; and he shall, upon the demand of any person, furnish certified copies thereof on payment in advance of fees not to exceed the fees prescribed by law. Appellants contend that, because the information sought here was stored on computer tapes, it is not a public record accessible to the public under § 15.17. Rather, they argue, only the microfilm copies of the practitioner invoices from which the computer tapes are made constitute public records. This argument is without merit. The requirement of Minn.St. 15.17, subd. 1, that public records be made on durable quality paper does not constitute a definition of public records. Rather, that requirement is imposed on [a]ll such public records. Such refers to the sentence immediately preceding, which requires officials to keep all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Thus, whether records are public records depends not on the form in which they are kept but on whether they are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of official activities. The form requirements merely ensure that the records are made permanent. The department has complied with this provision by microfilming the practitioner invoices. Minn.St. 15.17, subd. 4, which grants public access to all public records, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, places no restrictions on the form in which the records shall be made available other than that they shall be easily accessible for convenient use. While it provides that [p]hotographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records, it does not proscribe furnishing the records in some other form acceptable to the requester. Therefore, Minn.St. 15.17 does not in any way prohibit the department from releasing data contained in its public records in the form of a computer printout. Minn.St. 256B.041 provides for the establishment of a system for the centralized disbursement of medical assistance payments to vendors by the commissioner of public welfare. Minn.St. 256B.064 provides for the termination of such payments to vendors of medical care who have been determined to be ineligible for payment. These provisions establish that the records of payments to individual providers of medical care are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of the department's official activities. Without such records it could not be determined whether the department was making payments only to eligible providers or whether the payments made were reasonable for the services provided. Therefore, such records are public records accessible to the public under Minn.St. 15.17, and the information contained in such records is public data on individuals under Minn.St. 15.162, subd. 5b.
Appellants argue that even if the disclosure of the information sought is not proscribed by statute, such disclosure would impair or defeat the statutory right of medical assistance patients to a free choice of physicians. They contend that, if the information is disclosed, fewer doctors will be willing to participate in the medical assistance program and the patients' right to free choice will thereby be impaired. Even if this is true, however, it does not serve as a ground for injunctive relief. The legislature has provided mechanisms by which the public may be denied access to information controlled by state agencies. It has further determined that public records are to be available to the public except as otherwise expressly provided by law. Minn.St. 15.17, subd. 4. These provisions evidence a legislative intent to retain full control of public access to information. The power to restrict access is given to administrative agencies only in emergency situations, and even that power is subject to legislative action. No power to restrict access is granted to the courts. With such a clear statement of legislative intent, appellants' contention that the court should balance the public's statutory right of access against medical assistance patients' statutory right to a free choice of physicians and the effectiveness of the medical assistance program is unacceptable. The legislature has expressly reserved the power to engage in such balancing to itself, and its failure to deny public access to the information sought here constitutes a legislative determination that the public's right to know outweighs the competing interests of the medical assistance program and its patients.
Minn.St. 15.1641(e) provides: The responsible authority shall establish procedures and safeguards to ensure that all public, private or confidential data on individuals is accurate, complete and current. Emphasis shall be placed on the data security requirements of computerized files containing private or confidential data on individuals which are accessible directly via telecommunications technology, including security during transmission. Minn.St. 15.1671 provides in part: The commissioner [of administration] shall with the advice of the intergovernmental information services advisory council promulgate rules, in accordance with the rulemaking procedures in the administrative procedures act which shall apply to state agencies, statewide systems and political subdivisions to implement the enforcement and administration of sections 15.162 to 15.169. Appellants argue that since no rules have been adopted as required by § 15.1671, no information stored in the department's computer may be compiled or disseminated to the public. Appellants base their argument on the broad legal principle that important questions of social and political policy should not be decided by administrative agencies on an ad hoc basis. Yet, they fail to relate this principle to the facts of this case. Minn.St. 15.1641(e), quoted above, does not expressly require agencies to implement computer security procedures through rulemaking. The definition of rule in Minn.St. 15.0411, subd. 3, of the Administrative Procedures Act specifically excludes rules concerning only the internal management of the agency or other agencies, and which do not directly affect the rights of or procedure available to the public. The procedures and safeguards to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and currency of agency data on individuals concern only the internal management of the agency since they provide guidance to the agency in its collection and storage of information. Therefore, such procedures and safeguards need not be adopted in the manner specified by the Administrative Procedures Act. Minn.St. 15.1671 requires the commissioner of administration to adopt, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, rules to implement the enforcement and administration of sections 15.162 to 15.169. The commissioner has not done so. Nevertheless, this failure cannot affect public access to public information. Nothing in sections 15.162 to 15.169 purports to govern dissemination of public data. Dissemination is governed by Minn.St. 15.17 to 15.174. Minn.St. 15.171 expressly authorizes the use of alternative methods for the compilation, maintenance and storage of information contained in [official] records and provides that such methods must provide for access to the information by those authorized by law to have access. Since the information sought here is public information, the Catholic Bulletin is authorized to have access to it. Its access is thus determined under the Official Records Act, and the commissioner's failure to promulgate rules under the Data Privacy Act is immaterial. See, Reyburn v. Minnesota State Board of Optometry, 247 Minn. 520, 527, 78 N.W.2d 351, 356 (1956). Because the information sought by the Catholic Bulletin is public data on individuals accessible under the Official Records Act, because the statutory right of medical assistance patients has been legislatively subjected to the public's right to information contained in official records, and because the failure of the commissioner of administration to adopt rules under the Data Privacy Act does not affect the public's right to information, appellants have no statutory right to prevent the department from disclosing the requested information.