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

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