State/City Records and Tear Sheets

[Lori Allen _]

See http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/yellowbook

This handy yellow book provided by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is a manual for individuals and public officials alike regarding the Ohio Public Records Act.

When a run sheet created and maintained by a county emergency medical services (EMS) organization documents treatment of a living patient, the EMS organization may redact information that pertains to the patient’s medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition.

Mr. DeWine cites this case law as reference for the above statement: State ex re. Natl. Broadcasting Co. Inc v. Cleveland

However, a patient’s name, address, and other non-medical personal information does not fall under the “medical records” exemption in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a), and may not be redacted unless some other exemption applies to that information.

Mr. DeWine cites 2001 Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. No. 249 and 1999 Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. No. 006 as reference for the above statement.

Therefore, in the event that a public records request is made for this information, the City of Lakewood could redact "information that pertains to medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition." The City of Lakewood could not redact information such as address, name, or other, non-medical personal information in absence of a law to the contrary. I don't believe Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine or most courts of law would accept "the mayor doesn't want it released" as a valid reason for denial.

Since non-medical personal information may not be redacted, I would have a hard time believing that response and run times would be able to be redacted.

The law is the law. I can find no mention of "EMS run sheets" in the Ohio Public Records Act. The only mention is of "medical records", which would appear to be the only portion of an EMS run sheet that can be redacted, in accordance with case law and Ohio Attorney General opinions.

[scott gilman]

We are not a county EMS system and do not write "run sheets"
Below id from the handy yellow book

E.
Exemptions
Enumerated in the Public Records Act
The Public Records Act contains a list of records and types of information removed from the definition of “public records.”

The full text of those exemptions appears in R.C. 149.43(A)(1), a copy of which is included in Appendix A. Here, these exemptions
are addressed in brief summaries. Note that although the language
of R.C. 149.43(A)(1) – “Public record” does not mean any of the following -- gives the public office the choice of withholding or releasing the records, many of these same records are further subject to other statutes that
prohibit their release.

(a)Medical records, which are defined as any document or combination of documents that:

1) pertain to a patient’s medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition,and

2) were generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment.

Records meeting this definition need not be disclosed.Birth, death, and hospital admission or discharge records are not considered medical records for purposes of Ohio’s public records law.
Reports generated for reasons other than medical diagnosis or treatment, such as for employment or litigation purposes, are not “medical records” exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
However, other statutes or federal constitutional rights may prohibit disclosure,in which case the records or information are
not public records under the “catch-all exemption,” R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v)

[Lori Allen _]

First, EMS run reports are listed on the city's own records retention schedule.

I will give a call back to the attorney I spoke with at the OAG office and tell him that Lakewood City Hall and LFD need some further instruction on the law.

I will not waste my time writing it again, but in my previous post I cited case law and OAG opinions which state that only medical information can be redacted and the rest should be released.

With all due respect sir, I would like to see you renew your almost 10-year expired paramedic license instead of arguing with citizens on the Deck on city (my) time. I'll wait for my tongue lashing from the mayor's trolls for this.

Here comes the blast from Summers & Co.

[todd vainisi]

How bout a blast from not mayor trolls Lori? You undermine your own position by attacking the person who knows the most about the subject matter for issues not regarding the subject you brought up. His EMT license and what time of day he decided to do community outreach are really not relevant to the response he gave you. Notice how his response is free of any inference about your character or qualifications in these matters. You should pay him the same respect.

[Lori Allen _]

How bout a blast from not mayor trolls Lori? You undermine your own position by attacking the person who knows the most about the subject matter for issues not regarding the subject you brought up. His EMT license and what time of day he decided to do community outreach are really not relevant to the response he gave you. Notice how his response is free of any inference about your character or qualifications in these matters. You should pay him the same respect.

Todd,

I highly doubt Mr. Gilman knows more about the Ohio Revised Code and Ohio Public Records Act than a lawyer at the Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Mr. Gilman's paramedic license is extremely relevant here, as he was, once again, explaining EMS response and transport times. Since Mr. Gilman's salary is taxpayer funded, citizens have a right to be reminded that he has appatently not had a current, valid paramedic license since 2007. He opened that door, not me.

Never once did I attack Mr. Gilman's character. I was reminding the public that he has not had a paramedic license in almost ten years. That is a fact, not an attack. Also, I have a right to express my displeasure with Mr. Gilman's internet activities during normal business hours. Again, Mr. Gilman's salary is taxpayer funded. Also, there is a stark contrast between community outreach and getting online during business hours and arguing with taxpayers about the public records law, which, in all reality, he is not qualified to be arguing in his capacity as Chief of Fire.

If Mr. Gilman wishes to continue to regurgitate the same medical records exemption over and over again, that is fine. However, case law and OAG opinions have been posted in this thread that invalidate the statements of City Hall. This has been confirmed with the OAG's Office, whom I will be calling again on Monday.

[todd vainisi]

The same way you stand behind what you said, I stand behind what I said. You received the ear of the person that seems to be in a leadership position on the matter that you speak (regardless of his credentials the position is his), he cited the reasons that he feels your complaint/argument is in err or otherwise disagreed with, and in return you insulted his professional credentials.

Also this:

Since non-medical personal information may not be redacted, I would have a hard time believing that response and run times would be able to be redacted.

Doesn't seem to be the expert legal opinion of someone at the OAG office. That seems to indicate that it's Lori's opinion. Perhaps you are an expert with training (and not missing any certifications) and I don't realize.

It looked like he received your complaint and attack on his work and explained calmly why you were wrong, so you responded by saying that someone else that you talked to says he's wrong and by the way you don't have an EMT license and you are reading the deck on my dollar.

Hopefully nobody who's salary is paid by taxes gets the idea to look at your trash posts during the day and do something about it either, right? Cause that would suck to find out they were wasting tax money listening and responding to a tax payers complaints.