« Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending September 22, 2006 | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides property tax exemption case »
Friday, September 22, 2006
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals rules against Attorney General in Planned Parenthood records case
In Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Steve Carter and Allen K. Pope, a 56-page opinion (including a concurring opinion beginning on p. 47), Judge Crone concludes:
In conclusion, we reverse the denial of PPI’s request for preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial court shall immediately enter a preliminary injunction in favor of PPI against IMFCU’s demand for unlimited access to its patients’ medical records. As for the medical records currently in IMFCU’s possession, we hereby order IMFCU to return those records immediately to the trial court under seal pending resolution of the trial on the merits of PPI’s informational privacy claim. Notwithstanding the preliminary injunction, IMFCU may still refer any neglect complaint “to an appropriate criminal investigative or prosecutive authority” pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 1007.11(b)(2). Likewise, the attorney general and an IMFCU investigator may issue a subpoena for the medical records pursuant to Indiana Code Section 4-6-10-3. Reversed and remanded.NAJAM, J., concurs.
BARNES, J., concurs with separate opinion. [which begins] I agree with the majority that PPI’s patients have a Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy in their medical records and that PPI has standing to assert that right on behalf of its patients. I write separately, however, to emphasize my belief that any IMFCU subpoena of PPI patients’ medical records must at a minimum be reasonable as required by Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131, 1137 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 814, 122 S. Ct. 38 (2001). * * *In other words, before a subpoena is issued, I believe a court should be satisfied that (1) there is an independent basis for suspecting criminal wrongdoing and the records sought will be relevant to any such investigation; (2) disclosure of the records is sufficiently limited so as not to unduly infringe upon the constitutional rights of PPI patients; and (3) that the record’s request is sufficiently specific so as to not be unreasonably burdensome to PPI.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 22, 2006 10:31 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions