DHS v. C.E.S.

Under ORS 192.001(c), the State has “a responsibility to ensure orderly retention and destruction of all public records, whether current or noncurrent, and to ensure the preservation of public records of value for administrative, legal, and research purposes” (emphasis added).

Appellant, C, was made a ward of the court at fourteen, and at eighteen, Appellant and the Department of Human Services (DHS), moved for the court to dismiss jurisdiction and terminated her wardship under ORS 419B.328(2)(c). Appellant further asked the court to order DHS to provide her with her health records and destroy any remaining copies. The trial court granted Appellant’s first request, but denied the second. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erroneously denied her request for destruction of health records because the records were created for her, and belonged to her, not the DHS. In response, DHS argued that it was required under to retain her health record records because they qualified as public records. The Court agreed with DHS. Under ORS 192.001(c), the State has “a responsibility to ensure orderly retention and destruction of all public records, whether current or noncurrent, and to ensure the preservation of public records of value for administrative, legal, and research purposes” (emphasis added). A public record includes information that: “(a) Is prepared, owned, used or retained by a state agency or political subdivision; (b) Relates to an activity, transaction, or function of a state agency or political subdivision; and (c) Is necessary to satisfy the fiscal, legal, administrative or historical policies, requirements, or needs of the state agency or political subdivision.” ORS 192.005(5)(a). The Court reasoned that DHS was compelled to retain the records under ORS 192.001(c), and that while Appellant had a significant privacy interest in her health records, she did not have a property interest because “they were created by her healthcare providers, who are generally required to maintain such records for each of their patients, as a matter of licensure.” Furthermore, the Court explained that, Appellant’s privacy would still be protected because of the high evidentiary burden necessary for a party seeking to access such records under federal and state statutes that prohibit “the unlawful disclosure of health records.” Therefore, she could not order the destruction of any copies held by DHS or healthcare providers, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for destruction of the health records. Affirmed.