Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considered a mandamus action seeking unredacted records from the State Medical Board of Ohio under the Ohio Public Records Act. The court granted the writ in part for improperly redacted information, denied it in part for records protected by medical-board confidentiality, confidential law-enforcement investigatory-record, work-product, and attorney-client privileges, and denied statutory damages and attorney fees.
Holdings
- Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with Ohio's Public Records Act, and Mahajan was entitled to disclosure of specified improperly redacted information.
- R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) broadly protects information received by the Medical Board pursuant to an investigation, including the names of physicians under investigation, regardless of whether the information appears in investigative or personnel records.
- The physician who holds the confidentiality privilege under R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) may waive it, and Mahajan waived the privilege as to information concerning himself by requesting the records.
- The confidential-law-enforcement-investigatory-record exemption applies to records pertaining to administrative medical-board enforcement matters when disclosure would create a high probability of revealing specified protected information, including investigative work product.
- Mahajan was not entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees.
Questions Presented
- Whether Mahajan was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of the challenged redacted portions under the Ohio Public Records Act.
- Whether information received by the State Medical Board during an investigation is confidential under R.C. 4731.22(F)(5), including when the information appears in personnel records.
- Whether the confidentiality privilege under R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) was waived when the investigated physician requested records concerning himself.
- Whether the confidential-law-enforcement-investigatory-record exemption under R.C. 149.43(A)(2) protected investigative work product in an administrative medical-board investigation.
- Whether Mahajan was entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (31)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)(not reached)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St. 3d 163, 2010-Ohio-1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239, ¶ 67(followed)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St. 3d 70, 2005-Ohio-3807, 831 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 64(followed)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Reed, 87 Ohio St. 3d 159, 160, 718 N.E.2d 428 (1999)(followed)
- State ex rel. Natl. Emps. Network Alliance, Inc. v. Ryan, 125 Ohio St. 3d 11, 2010-Ohio-578, 925 N.E.2d 947, ¶ 1(followed)
- State ex rel. Russo v. Deters, 80 Ohio St. 3d 152, 154, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (1997)(followed)
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St. 3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6(followed)
- State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff's Office, 126 Ohio St. 3d 224, 2010-Ohio-3288, 932 N.E.2d 327, ¶ 6(followed)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St. 3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the syllabus(followed)
- State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor, 89 Ohio St. 3d 440, 444, 732 N.E.2d 969 (2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 31.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…