609 N.E.2d 247
No. 91CVH03-2533.Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County.
Decided April 27, 1992.
William H. Georges, for plaintiffs.
Page 585
Lee Fisher, Attorney General, and John C. Dowling, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
TOMMY L. THOMPSON, Judge.
This matter is before the court upon motion of defendant, Ohio State Medical Board (“the board”), to dismiss the complaint. Briefly, the pertinent facts in this case are as follows:
On March 29, 1991, the plaintiffs, Fred and Bobbee Kae Degordon, commenced this litigation pursuant to R.C. 2317.48. The plaintiffs have propounded interrogatories upon the various defendants, all of whom are employed by the board. The plaintiffs seek to discover the contents of certain investigatory files maintained by the board. (The court assumes, based upon the interrogatories, that the plaintiffs seek to discover what documents, information, etc. led to the board’s decision to issue a complaint.)
On May 7, 1991, the board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The board argues, in support of its motion, that the information sought by the plaintiffs is immune from discovery by virtue of R.C. 4731.22(C)(1). In response, the plaintiffs argue primarily that the records of the board are subject to discovery pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A)(1).[1]
R.C. 149.43(A)(1) provides as follows:
“(1) `Public record’ means any record that is kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state * * * units, except medical records, * * * confidential law enforcement investigatory records, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.” (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 4731.22(C)(1) contains the following language:
“Each complaint or allegation of a violation received by the board shall be assigned a case number and shall be recorded by the board. Information received by the board pursuant to an investigation shall be confidential and not subject to discovery in any civil action.”
R.C. 4731.22(C)(1) clearly removes all information received by the board from disclosure. The court finds this conclusion to be consistent with the holding in both State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hosp. Assn. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 111, 541 N.E.2d 587 (hospital records containing
Page 586
information made confidential by statute are excepted from R.C. 149.43[B]), and State ex. rel. Renfro v. Dept. of Human Serv.
(1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 25, 560 N.E.2d 230 (reports of suspected child abuse rendered confidential and therefore not subject to disclosure by virtue of R.C. 2151.421[H][1]).
There is the ancillary issue of the court’s obligation to conduct an in camera inspection. Ordinarily, the court must conduct an independent in camera inspection in order to determine if the records at issue contain any non-public information that should be severed through redaction, see, generally, State ex rel. Outlet Communications, Inc. v. Lancaster Police Dept. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 324, 528 N.E.2d 175. There is, however, an exception to the general rule. The court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection where (1) the matters contained in an allegedly public record are not in dispute, making only its status under the public records law an issue, and (2) the matters are entirely public or entirely confidential, State ex. rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 41, 549 N.E.2d 167, and McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 59, 550 N.E.2d 945. The court believes that based upon the very limited information in the record, there is not exactly a dispute as to what is in the investigatory file of the board. Judging from the interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs, there are statement(s) of a woman named Ruth Krahling and these statements pertain to an alleged violative physical examination conducted by one of the plaintiffs. In addition, the court finds that based upon the usage of the word “information” contained in R.C. 4731.22(C)(1), all of the material in the board’s investigatory file is intended to be immune from disclosure. If, for example, R.C. 4731.22(C)(1) stated that “all records” or “all complaints” received by the board were confidential, then arguably the board and/or the court would be required to review the entire file, redact the non-public portion of the file, and turn over the remainder to the plaintiffs. Because the legislature chose to employ the word “information,” the court interprets this to mean that everything in the file is “confidential and not subject to discovery in any civil action.”
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court finds the defendant’s motion to dismiss to be well taken and hereby sustains the same. The court will sign one of the entries previously submitted to the court.
So ordered.
Page 587