Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Grp., 2014–0223.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation50 N.E.3d 499,145 Ohio St.3d 446
Docket NumberNo. 2014–0223.,2014–0223.
Parties CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, Appellant, v. LIPSON O'SHEA LEGAL GROUP, Appellee.
Decision Date18 February 2016

145 Ohio St.3d 446
50 N.E.3d 499

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, Appellant
v.
LIPSON O'SHEA LEGAL GROUP, Appellee.

No. 2014–0223.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted May 19, 2015.
Decided Feb. 18, 2016.


50 N.E.3d 499

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian R. Gutkoski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

50 N.E.3d 500

Lipson O'Shea Legal Group, Michael J. O'Shea, and Ronald A. Annotico, Rocky River, for appellee.

PFEIFER, J.

145 Ohio St.3d 446

Background

{¶ 1} In 2012, Michael J. O'Shea, a principal of appellee, Lipson O'Shea Legal Group, made the following request for records from appellant, Cuyahoga County Board of Health (“Cuyahoga County BOH”):

Pursuant to RC 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act), I hereby request documentation or information of all homes in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 in
145 Ohio St.3d 447
Cuyahoga County where a minor child was found to have elevated blood lead levels in excess of 10 mg/DI [sic, mg/dl].

{¶ 2} After identifying the relevant responsive information, which it claims comprises approximately 5,000 pages, Cuyahoga County BOH determined that it was prohibited from providing the information to Lipson O'Shea. To confirm its conclusion, Cuyahoga County BOH sought a declaratory judgment in the court of common pleas with respect to “its status, duty, obligations and/or requirements to maintain the confidentiality of the records sought” by Lipson O'Shea. It submitted to the court 12 sample files as representative examples of the requested records for the court's in camera review.

{¶ 3} Cuyahoga County BOH moved for summary judgment. Upon review of the records, the trial court concluded that release of the records is prohibited by R.C. 3701.17, which exempts from disclosure certain health information if the individual is identified or if the information could be used to reveal the individual's identity. The court found that the requested records, even if redacted, could be used to reveal the identities of the individual children. The trial court ruled that release of the records was thus prohibited by state law within the meaning of R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) by virtue of the application of R.C. 3701.17. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to Cuyahoga County BOH.

{¶ 4} The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court's “blanket exemption” was inappropriate because many of the records, even those that contain “protected health information,” contain other information that is not excepted from disclosure. The court declared that instead of withholding all records, Cuyahoga County BOH must examine each document, redact any protected health information, and release any remaining unprotected information not otherwise excepted. 2013-Ohio-5736, 6 N.E.3d 631, ¶ 31. Accordingly, the court of appeals determined that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

{¶ 5} Cuyahoga County BOH appealed to this court. We accepted jurisdiction on the following proposition of law: “Information in the Custody of a Board of Health or the Ohio Department of Health that Either Identifies an Individual or Could Be Used to Ascertain that Individual's Identity is Exempt from Disclosure under the Public Records Act Absent the Individual's Consent.” 139 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2014-Ohio-3012, 11 N.E.3d 1195.

Analysis

{¶ 6} The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, which governs the availability of public records for inspection and copying, states that upon request, “all public records responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Claims
    • August 25, 2020
    ...O'Shea Legal Group, 2013-Ohio-5736, 6 N.E.3d 631, ¶ 5, 29-31 (8th Dist.), affirmed by Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Group, 145 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-556, 50 N.E.3d 499, ¶ 4, 12; State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Bond, 98 Ohio St.3d 146, 2002-Ohio-7117, 781 N......
  • State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 2019
    ...or by another statute providing protection to the subject of the information sought." Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Group , 145 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-556, 50 N.E.3d 499, ¶ 6. The records "custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception" to re......
  • State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Ass'n Certified Grievance Comm.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2017
    ...or by another statute providing protection to the subject of the information sought." Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Group , 145 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-556, 50 N.E.3d 499, ¶ 6. {¶ 12} The records "custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception......
  • The Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dep't of Health
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Claims
    • June 2, 2021
    ... ... Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea ... without citation to legal authority. ( Id ., Exhibit ... The ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT