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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT