State ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. v. Krouse, 76-1071
| Decision Date | 06 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1071,76-1071 |
| Citation | 51 Ohio St.2d 1,364 N.E.2d 854 |
| Parties | , 5 O.O.3d 1 The STATE ex rel. PLAIN DEALER PUBLISHING COMPANY v. KROUSE, Admr., et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, James P. Garner and Thomas M. Seger, Cleveland, for relator.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Hickey, Columbus, for respondents.
In Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 341 N.E.2d 576, 578, the court stated See, also, State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Andrews (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 283, 358 N.E.2d 565.
The respondents agree that these forms are "required to be kept" within the meaning of R. C. 149.43, but they assert that the forms are not public records because they are within the statutory exceptions for "records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations" and "records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law."
The Remittance Advice Forms contain no information or references to medical examination, diagnosis, or treatments. Although the forms do indicate payments made to providers of medical services or supplies in somewhat more detail than do state warrants, the forms are not pertinent to physical or psychiatric examinations in any meaningful sense. They represent only notations of state orders of payments, with no references whatever to any details of the relationship between doctor and patient, or other private matters. In addition, the awards of compensation allowed by the Industrial Commission are required to be kept as a public record by the commission under R. C. 4121.10. State ex rel. Szalay v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 130 Ohio St. 269, 199 N.E. 76; 1975 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops., No. 75-062.
In support of the assertion that the release of these forms is prohibited by state law, the respondents cite R. C. 4123.88, which provides, in part that "(n)o person shall, without prior authority from a member of the commission, the claimant, or the employer, examine or directly or indirectly cause or employ another person to examine any claim file or any other file pertaining thereto." These forms are not placed in claim files, but they might conceivably be considered part of some "other file...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodman v. City of Lakewood, 53647
...Inc., v. Rauch (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 12 OBR 87, 88, 465 N.E.2d 458, 459; cf. State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 1, 2, 5 O.O.3d 1, 1-2, 364 N.E.2d 854, 855. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the public disclosure of the requested records. ......
-
State ex rel. Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland
...R.C. 149.43 and the resolution of doubt in favor of disclosure. Dayton Newspapers, supra; State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 1, 5 O.O.3d 1, 364 N.E.2d 854; Wooster Republican Printing, supra; Beacon Journal, Therefore, we hold that a governmental bod......
-
State, ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hosp. Ass'n
...e.g., Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 74 O.O.2d 209, 341 N.E.2d 576; State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 1, 5 O.O.3d 1, 364 N.E.2d 854. In light of the intimate connection between the city and the hospital, and the use of public monie......
-
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. v. Lesak
...of disclosure. Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 341 N.E.2d 576 ; State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 1, 2, 364 N.E.2d 854 ; Wooster Republican Printing Co. v. Wooster (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 126, 135, 383 N.E.2d 124 ; State, e......