Sat Jul 5, 2008
Free Subscription

  
   
Search the Journal
 

 
Advanced Search

Journal Links
 

Return to Front Page
Table of Contents
About Us
Editorial Board
Call to Papers
Contact Us
Policies

 
My Account
 
Username:
Password:


Register - FREE
Account Help
 

Why Not? ’Cause We Said So.
Volume 3, Issue 4 -- Published: Sunday, Feb 28, 1999 -- Last Updated: Monday, Mar 11, 2002

Email to a colleague Comment on article Bookmark article Copyright & reprint info

 by: David Eisenberg, J.D.
The registrar of a mental health facility need not state specific public policy reasons for deny the medical records request of a patient currently under treatment.
Donald Savinski, a "sexually violent person" committed to state custody for in-patient mental health treatment at the Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC), sent a request to WRC Registrar Karren Kimble for all open records;
1. concerning any WRC patients' complaining about Savinski trying to dissuade them from taking treatment; -
2. concerning Savinski's putting a "compliance hold" on fellow patients;
3. indicating that Savinski tried to undermine the treatment of any particular sex offender; or showing that Savinski had to take sex offender treatment against his will.
Kimble denied the request, providing no explanation other than a citation to W.S.A. § 51.30(4)(d)1 of Wisconsin's Mental Health Act and Wis. Admin. Code § 92.05(1). Savinski then successfully petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus.
However, the court subsequently quashed the writ, pursuant to a challenge from Kimble and WRC Director Phillip Macht. Asserting that access to the records might allow Savinski to coerce, intimidate or harass the staff or other patients, Macht further maintained that Savinski's failure to submit the request through his social worker and treatment team in accordance with WRC policy exhibited an active resistance to treatment.
Savinski appealed, arguing that every denial of access to a public record must be accompanied by specific public policy reasons for the refusal.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. Where the information requested is covered by an open records law exemption that does not itself require a balancing of public interests for or against disclosure, a citation to the exempting provision suffices.
The provisions Kimble cited authorized WRC to consider Savinski's request simply by balancing the benefits to the patient of allowing access against the disadvantages to Savinski, other patients and the facility. Therefore, Kimble's response was appropriate.

Feedback: What do you have to say?  |  Help: Get expert assistance for your own case

Return to the front page of The Forensic Echo now!

Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1996-2003 The Forensic Panel