Opinion ID: 1449014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adequacy of Discovery

Text: DHHS, in its final point on appeal, argues that the ALJ did not err in receiving an unredacted version of a medical note into the record, where R.C. was only provided with a redacted version of the note and R.C. showed no prejudice. R.C. responds that, because the file she received contained an improperly deidentified medical report, she could not properly cross-examine the witnesses. She submits that, should she not prevail on the other issues, a remand with instructions to permit access to the unredacted document would be appropriate. We hold that there was no violation of R.C.'s rights. Arkansas Code Annotated § 12-12-506(e)(1) (Repl.2003) provides that DHHS shall not release data that would identify the person who made the report unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders release of the information after the court has reviewed, in camera, the record related to the report and has found it has reason to believe that the reporter knowingly made a false report. Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-506(e)(1) (Repl. 2003). At issue in the instant case is a medical chart note which detailed T.B.'s injuries. While R.C. received a copy of the note, both the title of the facility and the author of the note were blacked out or redacted in an overzealous effort to maintain the confidentiality of the case. [5] While it was never revealed whether the author of the note was the reporter, counsel for DHHS stated on July 15, 2004, that Debby Taylor was the author. Debby Taylor later testified, on August 16, 2004, that she authored the note in her capacity as the nurse at T.B.'s daycare. Following that admission, R.C.'s counsel was able to cross-examine Ms. Taylor. We hold that there was no error. While R.C. may not have known the author's identity prior to the beginning of the hearing on July 15, 2004, she was provided the author's name that day. Then, it was not until a month later that Ms. Taylor was called by DHHS as a witness. Consequently, R.C. had a month's time to perfect her cross-examination of the witness. We cannot say that the initial nondisclosure in any way violated her constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm the ALJ on this issue and reverse the circuit court on this and all other points. We further remand the matter to the circuit court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. Administrative decision affirmed; circuit court reversed and remanded. IMBER, J., not participating.