Autopsy reports are “medical records” exempt from disclosure under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, the state’s Supreme Court ruled in 4-1 decision handed down on July 16.
The court upheld a circuit court’s finding that although the FOIA statute does not explicitly define what constitutes a medical record, “autopsy reports fit neatly within that general understanding of medical records” under the term’s customary meaning.
“The medical information gained from the autopsy and indicated in the report is not confined to how the decedent died,” Justice Kaye Hearn wrote for the court. “Instead, an autopsy, which is performed by a medical doctor, is a thorough and invasive inquiry into the body of the decedent which reveals extensive medical information, such as the presence of any diseases or medications and any evidence of treatments received, regardless of whether that information pertained to the cause of death.”
The court found that makes autopsies different from death certificates, which the court had previously said are public records. It also noted that the state Attorney General’s office has long held the opinion that autopsy reports are medical records and exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
‘Matter for the legislature’
Newspaper reporter Joe Perry sent a FOIA request to Harvin Bullock, the Sumter County Coroner, for the report of an autopsy performed on Aaron Jacobs, who was shot and killed by two Sumter police officers in 2010. Perry had obtained an autopsy report possessed by SLED, the state’s law enforcement division and identified possible inconsistencies between the autopsy report and the police report. Perry filed his request hoping to compare the coroner’s report with the SLED report.
Sumter County denied Perry’s request, claiming that the autopsy report was a medical record and therefore by definition not a public record subject to disclosure. Perry and his publisher filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that autopsy reports were not medical records and therefore must be disclosed when requested under FOIA. A Sumter County circuit court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the county, and Perry appealed.
Perry noted that FOIA explicitly excludes photographs and other recordings related to autopsies, and argued that if autopsy reports are medical records, the exemption would be unnecessary because the materials would already be excluded. The court disagreed, finding that pictures or video of the procedure, “while possibly sensational or salacious,” do not make specific medical conclusions regarding the decedent the way autopsies do.
“While cognizant of our obligation to strictly construe the FOIA in favor of disclosure, we are nevertheless compelled here by the plain meaning of the statutory term to conclude that an autopsy report is exempt from the FOIA’s disclosure requirement,” Hearn wrote. “Although there may be policy concerns militating against this result, that is a matter for the legislature and not for this Court.”
‘Stretched the definition’
Justice Costa Pleicones dissented from the court’s ruling, noting that another portion of state law provides that an autopsy report “must be furnished upon request to any party to whom the cause of death is a material issue.” Pleicones said that if an autopsy report contains material which is not subject to disclosure, then the coroner or medical examiner to whom the FOIA request is made could redact that information.
Andrew Lindemann of Davidson & Lindemann in Columbia represented the coroner. Jay Bender of Baker, Ravenel & Bender in Columbia represented the reporter.
Bender said that he was disappointed by the ruling given the Supreme Court’s history of interpreting FOIA to provide for access to records and meetings of public bodies.
“In this instance, I feel like the court stretched the definition of a medical record, and the result was to foreclose the public from having access to autopsy reports,” Bender said. “It strikes me as strange that somebody examining a dead person can be said to compile a medical record.”
Lindemann could not be reached in time to comment on the decision.
The nine-page decision is Perry v. Bullock (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-078-14). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan