ILNews

Badger: Supreme Court will hear death records dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

badger-steven Badger

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral argument May 8 in a dispute over public access to county death records. The case, Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh County Health Department, raises the issue of whether a county health department’s death certificates, including the cause of death, are public records under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.

Last summer, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that, although some death records kept by county health departments are specifically designated by statute as being “open to public inspection,” the cause of death was not among them and therefore is not subject to disclosure under APRA. In so ruling, the Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with a 1975 Court of Appeals decision under an earlier version of Indiana’s death records laws.

Traditionally, county death certificates, including the cause of death, have been open to public inspection from county health departments even though the same information has not been available from the state department of health’s electronic “death registration system” created in 2011. Unlike county records, the state system is exempted from public access in its entirety. However, the availability of the cause of death information from county health departments has permitted journalists to investigate public health issues, including news stories about the misuse of prescription medications, drug safety, medical errors and infectious disease. Earlier this year, for example, the Herald Bulletin in Anderson reported upon the deaths of 31 patients of a local clinic whose deaths were attributed to misuse of prescription medications.

The availability of death certificates to all Hoosiers also allows citizens to research their family histories. That benefits not only amateur genealogists but also citizens trying to identify potential genetic health issues.

Laws protecting citizens’ access to public records and public meetings facilitate citizen oversight of the operations and affairs of government. If government is to function as “the servant of the people and not their master” (an express purpose of APRA), citizens must be privy to information the government receives and how the government goes about the business of governing.

Access laws are hardly controversial, but it is easy to become blasé about enforcement of access laws in many situations. In the heat of controversy, even dedicated public officials will yearn to take refuge in secrecy. Fortunately, there are committed advocates both within and outside government who work to safeguard the public’s rights of access. Among them is Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, whose office filed an amicus brief in support of the Evansville Courier & Press and arguing in favor of disclosure of county death certificates.

Public access disputes are rarely sexy. The Evansville Courier & Press case, for example, involves neither scandal nor political intrigue. However, the cause of death information included in death certificates is critical for investigative reporting of public health threats. It is hard to think of any societal issues more important than the public’s health. If government were able to hide information it gathers and receives relating to public health issues, it would be far more difficult for citizens to determine how well the government is protecting public health and to reach consensus on related public policy issues.

Ultimately, public records laws ensure government accountability. Without a strong commitment to maintaining public access to information, representative democracy could wither and die – ironic as such an outcome would be in the Internet era when information is readily available to all.•

__________

Steven Badger represents the Hoosier State Press Association, which filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Evansville Courier & Press. Badger represents media organizations and journalists in First Amendment, defamation and media law matters. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  2. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT