Court Opinion

ID: 9724412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:55:46.348822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.089333
License: Public Domain

SUNDBY, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur in all parts of the decision except, contrary to the majority, I conclude that Hillman states a claim against the defendants for their disclosure of the results of his HIV testing, contrary to sec. 146.025(5)(a), Stats. The majority concludes that sec. 146.025(5) (a) applies only to health care providers, blood banks, blood centers, plasma centers or persons to whom such entities have disclosed the results of a test for the presence of HIV. The majority concludes that this holding is required by Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 905, 922, 447 N.W.2d 105, 112 (Ct. App. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2626 (1990). I disagree.
The holding of Van Straten is very narrow. The court held that sec. 146.025(6), Stats., prohibits further disclosure of test results by persons learning of the results from the health care provider or the other enumerated entities. Section 146.025(6) prohibits the expanded disclosure of HIV test results. The section prohibits any person to whom the results of such a test have been disclosed under sub. (5) (a) or sub. (5m) from disclosing the test results, except as otherwise authorized. Subsection (5) (a) enumerates persons and entities to whom the results of an HIV test may be disclosed. Sub*408section (5m) applies to autopsies and the testing of certain corpses. The Van Straten court was correct in concluding that sub. (6) did not apply to the defendant newspapers because a newspaper is not one of the entities enumerated in sub. (5) (a) or sub. (5m). Van Straten did not, however, address whether sub. (5) (a) establishes a general confidentiality of HIV tests. I conclude that it does.
Section 146.025(5)(a), Stats., reads in part: "The results of a test for the presence of HIV . . . may be disclosed only to the following persons or under the following circumstances . . .." The majority would read the section to provide: "No health care provider, blood bank, blood center, or plasma center shall reveal the results of a test for the presence of HIV . . . except to the following persons or under the following circumstances . . .." The effect is to establish only a limited confidentiality of HIV tests. This is an unreasonable result which is contrary to the plain language of sec. 146.025(5)(a) and to the legislative history of sec. 146.025.
If there is ambiguity in sec. 146.025(5)(a), Stats., it is resolved by its legislative history. The legislation was requested by Representative David Clarenbach, speaker pro tern of the Assembly, and Representative John Robinson, in a memorandum of May 31, 1985 to Representative Jeff Neubauer. In that memorandum, Clarenbach stated:
Listed below are the points Rep. John Robinson and I would like included in the budget bill relating to confidentiality and the testing for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) antibody. The purpose of this amendment, which is patterned after the recently enacted California statute, is to guarantee the confidentiality of people whose blood is tested by *409private or public physicians, clinics or research facilities. This amendment would:
2. prohibit the disclosure of the results of the blood test in all circumstances except to the subject of the test, and then only if the subject agrees to being informed ....
The drafting records of sec. 146.025, Stats., show that the initial drafts provided that "no person" may disclose the results of an HIV test. Therefore, it can be argued that the legislature intended that the prohibition on disclosure would not apply to "any person" but only health care providers, blood banks, and blood and plasma centers, and persons to whom those entities had made authorized disclosures. There is, however, no evidence in the legislative drafting records to show that the legislature intended to provide only a limited confidentiality to HIV tests. Considerations of perceived clarity dictated the final form of the legislation. It is significant that sub. (5) (a) does not limit its application to, certain entities whereas sec. 146.025(2)(a), Stats., provides that "[n]o health care provider, blood bank, blood center or plasma center may ..." and sub. (4) provides in part, "[a] health care provider, blood bank, blood center or plasma center . . . shall . . .." Thus, the legislature referred to the specified entities when it dealt with duties which were exclusive to those entities but it did not continue that exclusivity when it provided for confidentiality.
I note that essentially the same legislative format is used in sec. 51.30, Stats., with respect to records of persons who are receiving or who at any time have received services for mental illness, developmental disabilities, alcoholism or drug dependence, and in sec. 146.82, Stats., which provides that all patient health care *410records shall remain confidential. See secs. 51.30(4) and 146.82(2). Our construction of sec. 146.025(5)(a), Stats., will be persuasive authority in construing those statutes. I cannot accept that the legislature intended to accord any such records, including the results of HIV testing, only a limited confidentiality. I therefore respectfully dissent.