Opinion ID: 1354043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DSS Case File

Text: Appellants contend that they have a right to review the DSS case file even though the allegations of abuse and neglect were unfounded. We disagree. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-650(F) (Supp.1994) provides: The names, addresses, and all other identifying characteristics of persons named in all unfounded reports maintained in agency files may be used only for auditing and statistical purposes. All identifying information contained in unfounded reports must be destroyed immediately after use of the information for auditing and statistical purposes, and in no case later than one year from the date that the last report has been determined to be unfounded; provided, however, that all information in any such report which is unnecessary for auditing and statistical purposes must be destroyed immediately upon a determination that such report is unfounded and the remaining information must be kept strictly confidential except for auditing and statistical purposes. Notwithstanding Section 20-7-690 [1] or any other provision of law, no information contained in unfounded reports may be disclosed under any circumstances. (Emphasis added). Appellants contend that, in their case, there was no report from a reporter; rather, there was merely a false complaint by a DSS staff member. Therefore, they argue that § 20-7-650(F) does not apply to them and they should be given unrestricted access to the case file. They also argue that § 20-7-650(F) is limited to the actual report of DSS; therefore, they are entitled to review any other material and records concerning their case. In interpreting a statute, this Court's primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Browning v. Hartvigsen, 307 S.C. 122, 414 S.E.2d 115 (1992). An entire code section should be read as a whole so that phraseology of an isolated section is not controlling. City of Columbia v. Niagara Fire Insurance Company, 249 S.C. 388, 154 S.E.2d 674 (1967). A statute as a whole must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers. Browning, 307 S.C. at 125, 414 S.E.2d at 117. The clear language of § 20-7-650 prohibits the disclosure of the DSS case file to Appellants or to anyone else. Report, as used in the section, is not limited to the initial complaint of abuse; rather it refers to all information appertaining to the DSS investigation of alleged abuse or neglect. Any other interpretation would render meaningless the mandate that all reports be destroyed if a case is determined to be unfounded. Moreover, it is patently clear that the identity of the reporter cannot be disclosed under any circumstance. This is necessary to encourage the reporting of suspected abuse without fear of retaliation. We reject Appellants' contention that the definition of reporter does not include those people employed by DSS. Accordingly, under § 20-7-650, Appellants are precluded from examining the DSS case file concerning the unfounded allegations of abuse lodged against them.