Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

Hill v. East Baton Rouge Parish Department of Emergency Medical Services

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Litigation.png

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article.

Hillvs.East Baton Rouge Parish Department of Emergency Medical Services
Number: 2005 CA 1236
Year: 2006
State: Louisiana
Court: Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
Other lawsuits in Louisiana
Other lawsuits in 2006
Precedents include:
This case established that 911 recordings are confidential and exempt from records requests.
WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption


Hill v. East Baton Rouge Parish Department of Emergency Medical Services was a 2006 case before the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal that was ruled that recordings of 911 calls for an ambulance may not be released to the public because they are confidential communications between a patient and a health-care provider.

Important precedents

This case established that 911 recordings are confidential and exempt from records requests.

Background

  • On February 21, 2005 Hill, a reporter for the Gannett Newspapers submitted an open records request for all 911 calls made from the home of Secretary of State Fox McKeithen on February 17, 2005.
  • On February 25, 2005, the parish denied the request claiming the documents were exempt under the Federal HIPAA legislation, which protects personal medical records.
  • Hill, with the support of various press organizations, filed suit, seeking to compel the release of the documents.
  • On April 22, 2005, the trial court ruled in favor of the city. Hill appealed the decision.[1]

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of the city, ordering the documents exempt after an in camera review. The court determined that the documents in question did contain personal medical information that was exempt under the federal HIPAA law.[1]

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and ordered the documents sealed.

The Court of Appeals determined that the information contained in the phone records constitutes privileged communication between a health care provider and his or her patient as outlined by the Louisiana Code of Evidence. The court went on to confirm that the EMS service was in fact considered a medical provider, and that the HIPAA laws also applied. Based on these two exemptions, the court decided that the documents in question were exempt from records requests, thus ruling in favor of the parish.[1]

Associated cases

See also

External links

References