State ex rel. Callahan v. Kinder, WD
Decision Date | 24 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
Citation | 879 S.W.2d 677 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Richard G. CALLAHAN, Prosecuting Attorney of Cole County, Missouri, Relator, v. The Honorable Byron L. KINDER and The Honorable James F. McHenry, Circuit Judges for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, and the Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondents. 48991. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard G. Callahan, Pros. Atty., Cole County, Jefferson City, for relator.
Alex Bartlett, Barbara L. Miltenberger, Husch & Eppenberger, Jefferson City, for Byron L. Kinder and James F. McHenry.
Judy P. Draper, Gen. Counsel, Karolin Solorzano, Dept. Gen. Counsel, Mo. Dept. of Corrections, Jefferson City, for Missouri Dept. of Corrections.
Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and ELLIS, JJ.
LOWENSTEIN, Presiding Judge.
The issue presented in this case involving alternative requests for extraordinary relief in mandamus, Rule 94, and prohibition, Rule 97, is as follows: May a local court rule require a corrections facility to produce an inmate's medical records as they relate to The Cole County Prosecuting Attorney petitioned this court for extraordinary relief to settle an impasse created when the judges of that circuit, on December 1, 1993, adopted the following Local Rule (Rule):
AIDS and HIV virus, tuberculosis or hepatitis to the court for in camera inspection prior to any court appearance by the prisoner?
In response, and in refusing to supply the medical information, Corrections Director, Dora Schriro, and her deputy wrote to the court stating statutory and constitutional considerations made inmates' medical records in general, and particularly as to AIDS, confidential and closed even to a court's in camera inspection. Corrections advised the court of its policy of quarantining in its facility an inmate suffering from tuberculosis (TB), and that the individual would not be transferred without precautions and notice to an outside agency. In order to break the impasse, the prosecutor filed for this writ for alternative relief against the respondents, Judge Kinder and Judge McHenry (Judges), to prohibit enforcement of the Rule and, ultimately against the Missouri Department of Corrections (Corrections), in mandamus to comply with the Rule so that he could proceed with the prosecution of twenty-one inmates without facing the possibility of dismissal on the grounds of speedy trial violations. See e.g., People v. Juan R., 153 Misc.2d 400, 589 N.Y.S.2d. 256 (Sup.1992).
This court issued its preliminary order prohibiting Judges from enforcing the Rule requiring prisoner medical records on hepatitis and TB, but, in a preliminary order of mandamus, required Corrections to provide the pertinent inmate records as to AIDS and the HIV virus. The court this day makes absolute the preliminary order relating to hepatitis and TB, quashes the preliminary order in mandamus as against Corrections on AIDS and HIV, and enters a final order prohibiting implementation of the Rule as to records relating to these diseases.
Before discussing the main issue, the Judges' contention that Corrections lacks standing to question the Rule is first addressed: 1) Although they are in adversarial roles in this writ action, the Judges and Corrections are both respondents. Corrections did not bring this action, therefore, its "standing to sue" is not an issue; 2) even if Corrections had brought this action, the Rule at issue requires Corrections to provide the pertinent medical records, which would provide it standing as custodian of medical records to protect those records from an unjustified intrusion. United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 574 (3rd Cir.1980); See Mann v. University of Cincinnati v. Jones, 824 F.Supp. 1190, 1199 (S.D.Ohio 1993); 3) this allegation confuses the concepts of standing and indispensable parties. State ex. rel. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, 823 S.W.2d 471, 474-75 (Mo. banc 1992). "Standing to sue is an interest in the subject matter of the suit which, if valid, gives that person a right to relief." Id. at 475. Such is the interest of Corrections in the case at bar. It is also noted the "threshold requirement for standing is extremely low where mandamus is brought to enforce a nondiscretionary duty allegedly required of a public official. Even the slightest interest is sufficient to support standing to bring mandamus The reasons given for promulgation of the Rule are now summarized:
in such circumstances." Id. It is ruled Corrections does have standing to assert a denial of providing inmates' medical records.
1. "To assure that proper precautions are taken with particular inmates who have communicable diseases", "in order to protect the well being of court personnel as well as the general public", because "a large number of inmates of ... [Corrections] are infected with infectious hepatitis, tuberculosis and/or are suffering from AIDS or the HIV virus."
2. Without such information, there is a danger to employees and the public. By receiving advance notice of prisoners with these diseases, "adequate precautions can be taken." These precautions would include having additional bailiffs and increasing ventilation in the courtroom.
3. In a letter to Corrections, the Judges said: The Judges have reported knowledge of several public defenders who have recently been diagnosed with TB.
Although the Rule at issue appears to be worded so that any county jail or state correctional facility would be subject to supplying the inmate's medical records, this opinion will address implications only as to our state system; however, the effect of the Order in Prohibition entered this day will be applicable to any local or other facility as well as Corrections. Likewise, the Rule would read so as to require a facility housing an inmate appearing in Cole County Circuit Court to divulge to the court any infectious disease, which could include diseases other than those specifically enumerated. Again, despite the more far-reaching scope of the Rule, this opinion will only cover HIV, AIDS, TB and hepatitis, with primary focus on HIV and AIDS records. Early on, Corrections advised the Judges that inmates with active TB, were, under existing department policy, being quarantined obviating any need for the Rule. No reason has been advanced for requiring medical information about hepatitis, so no analysis will be given for making absolute the prohibition as to these medical records. Therefore, since the focus of this Rule appears to be about HIV and AIDS, and the parties' arguments before this court are almost exclusively about that disease, this opinion will deal with HIV and AIDS records.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gonzales
...331 Or. 430, 448-449 & fn. 14, 16 P.3d 489; Middlebrooks v. State Bd. of Health (1998) 710 So.2d 891, 892; State ex rel. Callahan v. Kinder (Mo.App. W.D.1994) 879 S.W.2d 677, 681; State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (1994) 70 Ohio St.3d 605, 607-608, 640 N.E.2d 164; McMaste......
-
State v. Mahan
...1994. AIDS is a viral disease that weakens and then destroys the body's immune system, which leads to death. State ex rel. Callahan v. Kinder, 879 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Mo.App.1994) (citing Doe v. Barrington, 729 F.Supp. 376, 380 (D.N.J.1990)). HIV is acquired through contact with the blood, sem......
-
The People v. Gonzales
...Langley (2000) 331 Or. 430, 448-449 & fn. 14; Middlebrooks v. State Bd. of Health (1998) 710 So.2d 891, 892; State ex rel. Callahan v. Kinder (Mo.App. W.D. 1994) 879 S.W.2d 677, 681; State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (1994) 70 Ohio St.3d 605, 607-608; McMaster v. Iowa Bd.......
-
Transit Casualty Co. v. Intervening Employees
...name and address); Ex parte McClelland, 521 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. App. 1975) (police informant's identity); State ex rel. Callahan v. Kinder, 879 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. App. 1994) (prison inmate medical records). In order to close court or other public records, however, a court in its order must identif......