State ex rel. Fox v. Cuyahoga County Hosp. System, 87-770

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Citation: 39 Ohio St.3d 108,529 N.E.2d 443
• Docket Number: No. 87-770,87-770
• Parties: , 16 Media L. Rep. 1016 The STATE ex rel. FOX et al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM et al.
• Decision Date: 12 October 1988

Page 108

39 Ohio St.3d 108 529 N.E.2d 443, 16 Media L. Rep. 1016 The STATE ex rel. FOX et al.,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM et al. No. 87-770. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted June 8, 1988.
Decided Oct. 12, 1988. Syllabus by the Court

1. A public hospital, which renders a public service to residents of a county and which is supported by public taxation, is a "public institution" and thus a "public office" pursuant to R.C. 149.011(A), making it subject to the public records disclosure requirements of R.C. 149.43.

2. The award of attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C) is not mandatory.

This action in mandamus was brought by relators, who are taxpayers, residents, citizens, and electors of Cuyahoga County, and business, social or community organizations with offices in Cuyahoga County,

Page 109

seeking certain records and documents from respondents. The Board of Cuyahoga County Hospital Trustees operates respondent Cuyahoga County Hospital System (hereinafter "Hospital System"); respondent Henry E. Manning is President of the Cuyahoga County Hospital System; respondent William S. Gaskill is the Chairperson of the Board of Cuyahoga County Hospital Trustees; and respondent Michael Cole is a past Assistant to the President of the Hospital System.

Relators are opposed to the privatization of the Hospital System. On or about August 27, 1986, they requested the following records and documents of the Hospital System from respondents: (1) the Medicaid financial reports for 1984 and 1985; (2) the Cuyahoga County Auditor's reports for 1984 and 1985; (3) audited financial statements prepared for 1984 and 1985; (4) accounting records for the bad debt reserve for the accounts receivable for 1984 and 1985; (5) depreciation schedules for the fixed assets for 1984 and 1985; (6) inventory of the investments for the special purpose fund for 1984 and 1985; (7) financial information concerning contributions, disbursements and investments for the self-insured trust for 1984 and 1985; (8) accounting records of professional fees paid to outside third parties for legal, accounting and consulting services for 1984 and 1985; (9) accounting records for the parking garage operation for 1984 and 1985; (10) accounting records for the patient allowances, write-offs and write-downs and fee reductions for 1984 and 1985; (11) the five-year plan; (12) capital expenditure report for all construction in progress and all future construction; (13) payroll salary records for all management personnel for 1984 and 1985; and (14) the private placement plans existing for physicians.

Respondents disclosed Items 1 and 3 but denied access to the remaining items. Relators' request of the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney to institute action compelling respondents to comply with relators' demand was rejected.

Relators then commenced this mandamus action seeking to make the requested information available for inspection and copying.

Phillips & Co., L.P.A., and Gerald W. Phillips, Chicago, Ill., for relators.

Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Mark I. Wallach and Joseph A. Castrodale, Cleveland, for respondents.

MOYER, Chief Justice.

R.C. 149.43(C) provides that a person allegedly aggrieved by the failure of a governmental unit to promptly prepare a public record and to make it available for inspection or to make a copy of a public [529 N.E.2d 445] record available may commence a mandamus action. This section was enacted by the General Assembly to supersede this court's holding in State, ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co., v. Fostoria Hosp. Assn. (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 327, 512 N.E.2d 1176. It is clear from the language of R.C. 149.43(C) that relators can maintain this action and, indeed, respondents do not challenge relators' status to do so.

The primary issue presented is whether the Hospital System is a "public institution" and thus a "public office" that keeps public records subject to disclosure pursuant to R.C. 149.43. We hold that it is.

R.C. 149.43(A)(1) defines "public record" as " * * * any record that is kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, except medical records, records pertaining to adoption, probation, and parole proceedings, records pertaining to actions under section 2151.85 of the

Page 110

Revised Code and to appeals of actions arising under that section, records listed in division (A) of section 3107.42 of the Revised Code, trial preparation records, confidential law enforcement investigatory records, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law." ¹

R.C. 149.011(A) defines "public office" as "any state agency, public institution, political subdivision, or any other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of government." (Emphasis added.)

In Halaby v. Bd. of Directors of Univ. of Cincinnati (1954), 162 Ohio St. 290, 298, 55 O.O. 171, 175, 123 N.E.2d 3, 7, this court described the University of Cincinnati as a " * * * public institution organized for the purpose of rendering a public service to the residents of the city of Cincinnati. It is supported in part by public taxation and in this respect stands in the same category as the city's water service, garbage-collection service, fire-department service, and its public-school service. * * * " (Emphasis added.) "Public institution" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (5 Ed.1979) 719, as: "One which is created and exists by law or public authority, for benefit of [the] public in general; e.g., a public hospital, charity, college, university, etc." (Emphasis added.)

Under Halaby, an entity organized for rendering service to the residents of its community and supported by public taxation is deemed a public institution. The Cuyahoga County Hospital System renders a public service to residents of Cuyahoga County and is supported by public taxation. As such, it is a "public institution" and thus a "public office" pursuant to R.C. 149.011(A).

Respondents assert that the public records law, in R.C. 149.011(A), expressly mandates disclosure of records only by institutions engaged in the performance of governmental functions. Respondents contend that in Ohio a hospital owned and operated by a county is deemed, as a matter of law, to be performing a proprietary and not a governmental function and thus is not required to disclose its records. We disagree. Respondents' interpretation of R.C. 149.011(A) does not accord with the language of the statute. The clause reads "any function of government" and not "governmental functions" as respondents contend. A public office is any entity that exercises any function of government. The statute does not distinguish between proprietary and governmental functions. Assuming, arguendo, that there is any doubt as to the intent of the...