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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT