ILNews

Indiana justices consider whether ‘cause of death’ is public information

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Evansville newspaper and local county health department appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court Thursday, reviving a dispute they had decades ago over whether death certificates are public record.

In 2012, the Evansville Courier & Press filed a complaint against the Vanderburgh County Health Department after the health department denied the newspaper’s request for access to May 2012 death certificates. The newspaper was interested in learning the decedents’ cause of death, but the health department maintained that information was not a matter of public record.

Both the Vanderburgh Circuit Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the health department. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer of Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh County Health Department, 993 N.E. 2d 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Speaking to the justices, Patrick Shoulders, attorney representing the newspaper, summed up the case as being focused on the narrow issue of whether death certificates, which include the cause of death, and certifications of death registration are the same thing.

The newspaper contends they are two different documents. Consequently, while I.C. 16-37-1-8 limits who can obtain a certification of death registration to those who have a direct interest, it does not prohibit the public disclosure of death certificates.

However, the Vanderburgh Health Department, represented by Joseph Harrison Jr., asserted the Legislature used the terms “certification of death registration” and “death certification” interchangeably and access is limited only to those who meet the criteria outlined in the statute.

In 1975, the same parties had a similar dispute over death certificates. Then, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the documents were open to the public. The Indiana Supreme Court did not grant transfer.

Shoulders, partner at Ziemer Stayman Weitzel & Shoulders LLP in Evansville, pointed to the Court of Appeal’s prior opinion and said the newspaper believes “this court will affirm 40 years of precedent in this state and hold that, in fact, they are different documents.”

The Indiana attorney general and Indiana public access counselor have filed amicus briefs in support of the newspaper’s position. During oral arguments, Stephen Creason, deputy attorney general, briefly presented to the justices the state’s position that the death certificates listing the cause of death were public record.  

The justices asked many questions about the 2011 change to an electronic system of record keeping and if the county health departments still had access to cause of death information.

Justice Steve David asked Shoulders what would happen if the county health department did not have the cause of death and could not produce that information.

Shoulders maintained that local health departments have the information and can produce both a certification of death registration and a death certificate. He said the health department is using a “cut and paste collage of several statutes” to support its denial of access.

On the other hand, Shoulders noted, all three branches of state government have found death certificates to be public records. Specifically, in addition to the Court of Appeals decision in 1975 and concurring opinions from the Indiana attorney general and the Indiana access counselor, he said the four attempts by the Indiana General Assembly to limit access failed.

“I would suggest the attempt (here) is to do, perhaps through the judiciary or simply in practice, to amend this statute since four attempts to do it in the only proper way have failed,” Shoulders said. “That, in fact, by de facto action they are attempting to amend the statute and it is not their place to do that. It is the Legislature’s place to do that.”

The justices seemed less sympathetic to the Vanderburgh County Health Department.

Harrison, of counsel at Massey Law Office LLC in Evansville, contended the newspaper was “splitting hairs” in making a distinction between certification of death registration and death certificate. The terms are synonymous, he argued.

Moreover, he pointed out, the state mandates county health departments maintain for public access the death records of all county residents excluding the cause of death and Social Security numbers of the deceased. Harrison then questioned why the state would limit the information a health department makes available while, at the same time, allowing anyone to have access to a death certificate that gives the cause of death.

“To me, the Legislature has spoken on this,” Harrison told the court. “It’s clear that you can’t go to the Indiana State Department of Health and get a death certificate with cause of death information unless you meet specific requirements for those who are entitled to receive it.”

Both Chief Justice Brent Dickson and Justice Robert Rucker raised the possibility that the Legislature’s intent was not to limit access but rather to relieve the state from having to fulfill the requests by having the county health departments provide the information.

Harrison reiterated the statue is “perfectly clear” that only people meeting the statutory requirements can get access.

Rucker then asked, “Is it your position that the department does not have this information or that we’ve got it but you can’t get it because the statute says so?

“Oh no, they’ve got the information but it’s in the Indiana state death registration system,” Harrison replied.

“So nothing that would prohibit the county from extracting the data,” Rucker asked.

“They do it all the time,” Harrison answered.

Later Justice Mark Massa and David picked up the same line of questioning, inquiring whether the health department was able to get the death certificates. Harrison replied the local agency can provide the documents.

The court took the case under advisement.
 

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  2. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  3. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  4. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  5. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

ADVERTISEMENT