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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT