Court Opinion

ID: 9399589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 19:11:17.807777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.810983
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Standifer v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2023-Ohio-1855.]

                               IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 LAUREN (CID) STANDIFER                                  Case No. 2022-00217PQ

         Requester                                       Judge Lisa L. Sadler

         v.                                              DECISION AND ENTRY

 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

         Respondent

         {¶1} In this public-records case, Respondent Ohio Department of Health objects
to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. The Court sustains, in part, the
objections for reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the Court adopts, in part, and rejects,
in part, the Report and Recommendation.
    I.        Background
         {¶2} On March 11, 2022, Requester Lauren (Cid) Standifer, a self-represented
litigant, filed a public-records complaint against Respondent wherein Requester claimed
that Respondent denied Requester’s “request for location of death, manner of death,
race, ethnicity, marital status, occupation and industry for all Ohioans who died in 2020.”
The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case to mediation. Mediation
failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties.
         {¶3} On May 5, 2022, in a filing labeled “Response To Requestor’s Complaint And
Motion To Dismiss,” Respondent moved to dismiss Requester’s Complaint on grounds
that Requester was not entitled to the requested information.
         {¶4} On February 10, 2023, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R).               The Special Master recommends denying Respondent’s
motion to dismiss. (R&R, 5.) The Special Master further
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                        -2-                      DECISION & ENTRY

       recommends the court GRANT requester’s claim for production of the
       requested death database, with redaction of the names and addresses of
       all decedents to satisfy current law prohibiting disclosure of information that
       connects an individual decedent to a past physical or mental health status
       or condition. It is recommended that requester be entitled to recover from
       respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other
       costs associated with the action that were incurred by requester. It is further
       recommended that court costs be assessed to respondent.
(R&R, 20.)
       {¶5} In support of the recommendations, the Special Master “finds clear and
convincing evidence that [Requester] requested an existing ‘record’ from [Respondent] –
the death certificate database – and that [Respondent] is capable and practiced at
redacting protected name, address, and other data columns from that record as
necessary.” (R&R, 14.) The Special Master further “finds that [Respondent] may redact
from the death certificate file only information falling squarely under R.C. 3701.17(B), and
must disclose the rest.” (R&R, 16.) The Special Master notes that he
       is not persuaded that no other death data category can be released with
       cause of death data without disclosing personal health information. Based
       on [Respondent’s] practice up to and including the Ludlow case [Ludlow v.
       Ohio, Dept. of Health, Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00040PQ, 2021-Ohio-2651,
       adopted by and objections overruled by, 2021-Ohio-3532, rev’d Ludlow v.
       Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-369, 2022-Ohio-3399,
       discretionary appeal accepted, Sup.Ct. No. 2023-Ohio-1391, 01/31/2023
       Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-212], the Special Master finds that
       redaction of decedents’ name and address of residence columns is
       sufficient to comply with the exemption.
(R&R, 18.) The Special Master
       recommends the court find [Respondent’s] interpretation prior to 2019 was
       a consistent and reasonable application of statutory language, and that its
       increasingly secretive interpretations since then are inconsistent and
       unreasonable. [Respondent] offers no evidence that it gave its sudden
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                          -3-                       DECISION & ENTRY

         retreat from past practice thorough consideration, stating only that it had
         “reassessed” the scope of R.C. 3701.17. (Priddle Aff. I at ¶ 5(c)(iii); Oct. 7,
         2022 Reply to Special Master’s Order at 2; Priddle Aff. II at Response to
         Item 3 – last ¶.) [Respondent’s] newest and most draconian interpretation
         is even less consistent with its pre-2019 interpretation, and conceptually
         implausible. [Respondent’s] interpretation of the relevant statutes prior to
         2019 was consistent with statutory language and with the requirement in
         public records law that exemptions be construed strictly against public
         offices and in favor of disclosure. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155
         Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 7.
(R&R, 19.) The Special Master states:
                It cannot be emphasized enough that every bit of data in the Death
         File is publicly available to any person, including the media – if they are
         willing to pay [Respondent] substantial fees to print out thousands of death
         certificates. Alternatively, cause of death data may be obtained from the
         public reports of Ohio’s county coroners at a far lesser price. R.C. 313.09
         and R.C. 313.10(A)(1) and (B). The General Assembly has expressly made
         the cause of death of any individual Ohio decedent available to any person
         who wishes to know that fact. [Respondent] grasping at strained arguments
         to release as little as possible of this elsewhere public data is the antithesis
         of the openness and transparency promoted by the Public Records Act.
(R&R, 20).
         {¶6} On February 27, 2023, Respondent filed written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Requester has not filed a timely response to Respondent’s objections.
   II.      Law and Analysis
         {¶7} Through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75, the General Assembly has created
an alternative means to resolve public-records disputes. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty.
Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. See
R.C. 2743.75(A). Under Ohio law, a requester “must establish entitlement to relief in an
action filed in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and convincing evidence.”
Viola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110315, 2021-Ohio-
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                          -4-                        DECISION & ENTRY

4210, ¶ 16, citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th
Dist.). See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337,
2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 32. It is a requester’s burden to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the requested records exist and are public records maintained
by a respondent. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-
1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8.
      {¶8} A public-records custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an
exception to disclosure of a public record. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-
Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the
syllabus. In Jones-Kelley, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
             Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43,
      are strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and the
      custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception. A
      custodian does not meet this burden if it has not proven that the requested
      records      fall   squarely   within   the    exception.   (State ex rel.   Carr v.
      Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006 Ohio 6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, P 30,
      followed.)
Kelley at paragraph two of the syllabus.
      {¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(1), a special master is required to submit to this
Court a report and recommendation based on the ordinary application of statutory law
and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of a complaint.              Under R.C.
2743.75(F)(2) parties may file written objections to a report and recommendation and
responses thereto. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), the Court, within seven business
days after the response to the objection is filed, “shall issue a final order that adopts,
modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation.”
      A. Respondent presents seven grounds in support of its objections.
      {¶10} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) requires that any objection to a report and
recommendation “shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the
objection.” In its objections, Respondent states:
             ODH [i.e., Respondent] objects * * * for the following reasons: (1) the
      Department has already provided records to Requester that fulfill its public
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                      -5-                     DECISION & ENTRY

      records obligation; (2) the remaining information Requester seeks does not
      exist as a record subject to disclosure; this means that in order to comply
      with the request, ODH would be required to create a new record; (3)
      Requester is seeking protected health information that ODH cannot legally
      disclose and the Report and Recommendation errs in concluding that ODH
      “waived” facts to support this exemption; (4) previous disclosure of similar
      information does not establish a precedent that must be followed here as
      estoppel does not run against the state; (5) the Special Master’s application
      the “Database Rule” contradicts current law and ignores unrefuted evidence
      submitted by ODH; (6) though not required, it is prudent to reserve decision
      in this case until the Ohio Supreme Court decides Ludlow vs. Ohio
      Department of Health, 2022-Ohio-3399, a case that is factually on point and
      currently on appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals; and (7) costs
      and fees should not be awarded.
(Objections, 1.)   Notably, Respondent has not objected to the Special Master’s
recommendation to deny Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss.
      {¶11} For ease of analysis, the Court considers Respondent’s objections in a
different order than presented by Respondent.
   1. Respondent’s suggestion to stay this action and reserve a decision until the
      Ohio Supreme Court decides Ludlow is not well taken.
      {¶12} In Ludlow v. Ohio, Dept. of Health, Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00040PQ, 2021-Ohio-
2651, Randy Ludlow, who at that time was a reporter for The Columbus Dispatch, filed a
public-records request with the Ohio Department of Health in which he sought a digital
spreadsheet copy of the Electronic Death Reporting System.          Ludlow later filed a
complaint in this Court. A special master recommended that this Court issue an order
requiring the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) to provide Ludlow with the requested
records.   On ODH’s objections to the special master’s recommendation, the Court
overruled the objections, adopted the special master’s recommendation, and ordered
ODH to forthwith provide Ludlow with the requested records in accordance with the
Special Master's recommendation. Ludlow, Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00040PQ, 2021-Ohio-
2651, adopted by and objections overruled by, 2021-Ohio-3532.
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                       -6-                      DECISION & ENTRY

       {¶13} ODH thereafter appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which
reversed this Court’s judgment. Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
21AP-369, 2022-Ohio-3399. The court of appeals determined that “the record Ludlow
sought in his request contained protected health information, which ODH properly
withheld pursuant to R.C. 3701.17(B).” Ludlow at ¶ 21.
       {¶14} Ludlow later sought discretionary review by the Ohio Supreme Court,
presenting a single proposition of law: “Information contained in an Ohio death certificate,
and specifically cause of death information of a decedent, is not ‘protected health
information’ within the meaning of R.C. 3701.17(A)(2) so as to make such information
exempt from disclosure under state law for purposes of the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C.
149.43.”   (Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction filed on November 1, 2022.)
www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=933169.pdf&subdirectory
=20221391\DocketItems&source=DL_Clerk (accessed on Feb. 28, 2023). The Ohio
Supreme Court has accepted Ludlow’s appeal for review. Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health,
2023-Ohio-1391, 01/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-212.
       {¶15} Respondent suggests that this Court should reserve its decision in this case
until the Ohio Supreme Court decides Ludlow. If the Court were to adopt Respondent’s
suggestion, then such action would conflict with the statutory deadline established by the
General Assembly in R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), which, states, in part: “The court, within seven
business days after the response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that
adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation.” (Emphasis added.) The
General Assembly is the final arbiter of public policy relevant to public-records laws, and
unless R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) contravenes the state or federal constitutions, this Court
generally should not deviate from statutory deadlines enacted by the General Assembly
in R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). See Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-1244,
846 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 44; Beagle v. Walden, 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 62, 676 N.E.2d 506 (1997).
Moreover, if the Court were to reserve judgment in this case until the Ohio Supreme Court
decides Ludlow, such action would be contrary to the “expeditious and economical
procedure” contemplated by the General Assembly when the General Assembly enacted
R.C. 2743.75. See R.C. 2743.75(A).
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                        -7-                      DECISION & ENTRY

       {¶16} The Court declines to adopt Respondent’s suggestion to stay this case and
reserve a decision in this case until the Ohio Supreme Court decides Ludlow.
   2. Walsh and Ludlow are applicable and resolve this case.
       {¶17} In Walsh v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-109, 2022-Ohio-272,
183 N.E.3d 128 (Luper Schuster, J., with Dorian, J., concurring, and Jamison, J.,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part), a relator sought a writ of mandamus in a
common pleas court to compel the Ohio Department of Health and others to comply with
a public records request. On respondents’ motion, the common pleas court granted
respondents’ motion to dismiss. Relator appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the common pleas court.
       {¶18} In Walsh, the court of appeals noted, “At issue * * * is whether the requested
record contains information excluded from the general definition of a ‘public record’ under
R.C. 149.43.” Walsh at ¶ 12. The court of appeals further noted, “The issue * * * resolves
to whether the ability to obtain a decedent's cause of death via his or her death certificate
reflects the General Assembly's intent that this information, which is otherwise protected
health information under R.C. 3701.17, may be released by ODH pursuant to a public
records request under R.C. 149.43.” The court of appeals “conclude[d] the trial court did
not err in finding ODH has no duty to grant Walsh's public record request,” Walsh at ¶ 22.
The court of appeals noted, “Upon our review of all pertinent statutes, we find no indication
of General Assembly intent to exclude a decedent's cause of death information from the
confidentiality protection of R.C. 3701.17, except as necessary or required under that
statute, or to the extent that information is obtainable pursuant to R.C. 3705.23.” Walsh
at ¶ 21.
       {¶19} In Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-369, 2022-
Ohio-3399, ¶ 10 (Klatt, J., with Beatty Blunt and Mentel, JJ., concurring), the appellant
“attacke[d]” Walsh. However, in a unanimous decision, the court of appeals “decline[d]
to depart from the holding in Walsh.” Ludlow at ¶ 20.
       {¶20} The question before the Court is whether the requested records are
accessible through the Ohio Public Records Act—not whether Respondent has changed
its precedent in dealing with public-records requests for certain information. Collectively,
Walsh and Ludlow answer this question and stand for the proposition that Requester is
Case No. 2022-00217PQ                         -8-                    DECISION & ENTRY

not entitled to the public records that Requester seeks in this case. On the authority of
Walsh and Ludlow, the Court therefore sustains Respondent’s objection that Requester
is seeking protected health information that Respondent may not legally disclose.
Because the Court’s ruling on the question before the Court is dispositive, Respondent’s
remaining objections are rendered moot.
    III.      Conclusion
           {¶21} For the reasons set forth above, the Court sustains, in part, Respondent’s
objections.         The Court adopts the Special Master’s recommendation to deny
Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss but rejects, in part, the recommendations and
conclusions of law contained in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court
adopts, in part, and rejects, in part, the Report and Recommendation. Court costs are
assessed against Requester.         The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this
judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

                                             LISA L. SADLER
                                             Judge

Filed May 4, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/5/23