Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Commission, 12452
| Decision Date | 08 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 12452,12452 |
| Citation | 544 S.W.2d 802 |
| Parties | Joyce HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. The TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Keith Short, Foreman, Dyess, Prewett, Rosenberg & Henderson, Houston, for appellant.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Colin J. Carl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appelles.
O'QUINN, Justice.
The opinion of this Court heretofore filed in this cause is withdrawn, and the following opinion is filed in lieu of the first.
By this action petitioner, Joyce Hutchins, seeks by mandamus to compel disclosure of certain records held by the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. Petitioner is a former patient of the Rehabilitation Commission and asserts that the records must be provided her under authority of the Texas Open Records Act. 1
The facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute. For approximately twenty years Joyce Hutchins received services from the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. In 1974 she commenced efforts to obtain her records by requesting them in accordance with the provisions of the Open Records Act. The Commission refused to disclose the records to petitioner after the Commission determined, in its own opinion, that the information was exempt from disclosure. The Commission made no attempt to request an Attorney General's opinion to determine whether such records are exempt from disclosure, as authorized by the Act. (Art. 6252--17a, sec. 7).
Petitioner brought this action to compel the Commission to open the records for her inspection under authority of Section 8 of Article 6252--17a. The trial court denied the writ, and from that order petitioner brings this appeal.
No findings of fact were requested and none was filed.
Under the first point of error petitioner contends the trial court erred in ruling that the information sought is confidential. Petitioner contends that the information sought does not fall within any exception to the disclosure requirements of the Open Records Act .
The Open Records Act became effective in 1973 with the express purpose of making public any information collected, assembled or maintained by governmental bodies. It provides:
'All information collected, assembled, or maintained by governmental bodies pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business is public information and available to the public during normal business hours . . . with the following exceptions only: (1) information deemed confidential by law, either Constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision; * * *' Art. 6252--17a, sec. 3(a)(1).
The Act, in Section 3, proscribes sixteen exceptions to public disclosure of information. Respondents contend that the first exception (quoted above) prohibits disclosure of the desired records to petitioner. More specifically, respondents contend that Section 30.47 of the Texas Education Code falls within this exception, thereby barring disclosure to a former patient as well as to the general public. Section 30.47 states, in pertinent part:
'It shall be unlawful, except for purposes directly connected with the administration of the rehabilitation program and in accordance with regulations, for any person or persons to solicit, disclose . . . or make use of . . . any list of, or names of, or any information concerning, persons applying for or receiving rehabilitation, directly or indirectly derived from the records.' (Added to the Code by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1525, ch. 405, sec. 52, eff. May 26, 1971).
In rebuttal, petitioner urges that Section 30.47 applies only to the general public having no legitimate interest in those records, whereas a patient has a legitimate interest in, and a right to inspect, the patient's own medical records.
Petitioner thus claims that her individual status as a former patient, seeking to inspect her own medical records, places her in a special status, which circumvents the confidentiality and the prohibition against disclosure under Section 30.47. Based on this special status and circumstance, petitioner further claims that under authority of the Open Records Act she is entitled to inspection of her own records, not because of her status as a member of the general public, but by reason of her individual status as a former patient with whom the requested records are concerned. We do not agree with these contentions.
Beyond a public right derived under the Open Records Act, petitioner argues further that a former patient has a common law right to inspect his or her own records. We agree with this contention.
Based on individual status, such a common law right to inspect the person's own records would overcome the presumption of confidentiality and the prohibition of record disclosure in Section 30.47 of the Texas Education Code.
The Supreme Court's recent decision, construing the Texas Open Records Act with respect to certain information sought from records of the Industrial Accident Board, does not in our opinion require a conclusion different from that reached in this cause. See Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.1976). Both the majority of the Supreme Court and the dissenting justices appear to recognize in the Open Records Act a strong preference for disclosure over confidentiality. But the majority, in three separate statements, made clear that the individual may not gain right of access and inspection based on special individual status, concern, or circumstances, rather than on status as a member of the general public.
At page 674, the Supreme Court said:
(Emphasis by Supreme Court; footnotes omitted)
And, at page 685, the Court said:
'We should make clear that the particular interest of the requestor, and the purposes for which he seeks the information, are not to be considered in determining whether the matter requested is of legitimate concern to the public, except insofar as the requestor's interest in the information is the same as that of the public at large. As we have stated above, the Act makes clear that the motives of the individual requestor are not relevant to the determination of whether the matter requested is 'public information ."
At page 686, the Court added:
'Our conclusion, however, is that the Act prohibits consideration of the motives of the requesting party in determining whether information must be disclosed.'
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...of Houston v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 673 S.W.2d 316, 324 (Tex.App. — Houston 1st Dist. 1984, no writ); Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Comm'n, 544 S.W.2d 802, 803 (Tex. Civ.App.—Austin 1976, no writ). Open Records Decision 319 clearly sets out the burden necessary to overcome th......
-
Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services of City of New York
...Ohio Law Abs. 224, 170 N.E.2d 261; see also, Cannell v. Med. and Surgical Clinic, 21 Ill.App.3d 383, 315 N.E.2d 278; Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Commn., 544 S.W.2d 802 [Tex.Civ.App.] ). The subject has provoked comment both in New York (see, Kaiser, Patients' Rights of Access to Their ......
-
Tex. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs v. Abbott
...This Court has previously held that a former patient has a common-law right to inspect his own medical records. See Hutchins v. Texas Rehab. Comm'n, 544 S.W.2d 802, 803 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1976, no ...
-
Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc., HARTE-HANKS
...Foundation recognized in the Open Records Act a strong legislative preference for disclosure over confidentiality. Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Comm'n, 544 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, no If appellants are of the view that their privacy interests do not receive enough consideration und......