Opinion ID: 2113720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Justiciability of Appeal

Text: The Attorney General argues that this appeal should be dismissed as moot because Remington's medical records already have been provided to the Attorney General and to the State of Connecticut. Because justiciability is a threshold issue, we must address it before considering the merits of Remington's appeal. Generally, this Court will not review moot cases. If a decision by this Court would fail to have a practical effect on the existing controversy, the question is moot, and we will not render an opinion on the matter. See City of Cranston v. Rhode Island Laborers' District Council Local 1033, 960 A.2d 529, 533 (R.I.2008); see also Associated Builders & Contractors of Rhode Island, Inc. v. City of Providence, 754 A.2d 89, 90, 91 (R.I.2000) (holding that the plaintiffs' claim was moot because the public works project that was the subject of the dispute had been completed); Morris v. D'Amario, 416 A.2d 137, 139 (R.I. 1980) (As a general rule we only consider cases involving issues in dispute; we shall not address moot, abstract, academic, or hypothetical questions.). Additionally, a case is moot if the original complaint raised a justiciable controversy, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of a continuing stake in the controversy. Unistrut Corp. v. State Department of Labor and Training, 922 A.2d 93, 99 (R.I.2007) (quoting School Committee of Johnston v. Santilli, 912 A.2d 941, 942 (R.I.2007) (mem.)). We recognize a narrow exception to the mootness doctrine for cases of extreme public importance, which [are] capable of repetition but which [evade] review. City of Cranston, 960 A.2d at 533 (quoting Arnold v. Lebel, 941 A.2d 813, 819 (R.I.2007)). Cases of extreme public importance involve important constitutional rights, matters concerning a person's livelihood, or matters concerning citizen voting rights. Cicilline v. Almond, 809 A.2d 1101, 1106 (R.I.2002) (quoting Associated Builders & Contractors of Rhode Island, Inc., 754 A.2d at 91). In the case at hand, a decision by this Court on the merits would fail to have a practical effect on the underlying controversy. See City of Cranston, 960 A.2d at 533. After Remington failed to seek a stay with this Court despite being given the opportunity to do so by the motion justice, his medical records were released to the Attorney General, who in turn disseminated them to law enforcement authorities in Connecticut. Connecticut since has filed criminal charges against Remington, and a criminal proceeding is pending in that state. Now that the medical records are in Connecticut, this Court lacks the authority to tell our sister state what to do with them. Remington argues that a decision by this Court holding that the motion justice erred in releasing the medical records could affect their admissibility in the Connecticut proceeding, and thus, the disposition of that case. However, he cites to no Connecticut law, rule of evidence, or other authority that would bar the admissibility of the records simply because a court in another state determined that they were released improperly. Moreover, regardless of what we decide, the Connecticut court still could admit or reject the records for an entirely different reason. Indeed, even if the Connecticut court agrees with Remington and holds the records inadmissible by virtue of their improper release, it nevertheless might admit the records through a different procedural vehicle. Because a decision by this court on the merits will not have a practical effect on the underlying controversy, the appeal is moot. See City of Cranston, 960 A.2d at 533. Furthermore, because Remington challenges only the procedural vehicle through which his records were obtained, this case does not fall under the extreme public importance exception to the mootness doctrine. See Cicilline, 809 A.2d at 1106. Thus, we decline to consider its merits. For the foregoing reasons, we deny and dismiss Remington's appeal.