Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 9/28/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Kimberly Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Dear Ms. Tucker:
You ask substantially the following question:
Are meetings of the district case review committees at which confidential information is discussed exempt from the open meetings requirement of section
In sum:
In the absence of an exemption from the Government in the Sunshine Law, section
You state that pursuant to Rule 10E-10.020, Florida Administrative Code, district case review committees are established to provide for uniform case review and approval of treatment for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents.1 During the review of individual cases, information contained within the clinical files of patients is disseminated. Section
According to your letter, District 10 has renamed its district case review committee as the Multidisciplinary Review Committee (MRC). Although renamed, you state that the MRC performs the same duties and functions as the district case review committee. It is the responsibility of the committee
to provide for uniform case review and approval of residential treatment for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents and to ensure that residential services are approved only when those services are needed, and to ensure that they are the least restrictive and most beneficial treatment available. This committee will also assign a case manager to each child placed. . . .2
This office has been advised that case managers often present to the MRC psychiatric and psychological evaluations of a child and update the committee on the child's progress in treatment. Therapists treating the child may also be present and may inform the MRC of such treatment.
A question has therefore been raised as to whether the MRC meeting must be open to the public pursuant to s.
The Government in the Sunshine Law, section
Thus, a committee created by a public agency and charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving residential treatment for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents when needed would appear to be subject to the same provisions as would a board or commission within the meaning of the Government in the Sunshine Law. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that in the absence of a statute exempting a meeting in which privileged material is discussed, section
Prior to 1991 several district courts, in reviewing specific exemptions providing for confidential or exempt material, held that certain proceedings could be closed when considering confidential material, held that certain proceedings could be closed when considering material.7 However, the Legislature in 1991 amended section
An exemption from [s.
Accordingly, this office in Attorney General Opinion 91-45 stated that meetings of a district school board at which confidential student records are discussed are subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law in the absence of a statute exempting such meetings. Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion 91-75, this office concluded that a meeting of a school board to consider confidential information relating to the investigation of a complaint against a public school employee was open in the absence of a statute exempting such a meeting from section
A number of statutory exemptions to the Sunshine Law have been enacted to apply to meetings, or portions of meetings, of public boards or commissions considering confidential records.9 However, as you note, no exemption from section
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that in the absence of an exemption from the Government in the Sunshine Law, the meetings of the MRC or district case review committees are subject to the requirements of section
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tgk
Times Publishing Company v. Williams , 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5837 ( 1969 )
Capeletti Bros., Inc. v. DOT , 499 So. 2d 855 ( 1986 )
Board of Public Instruction of Broward Cty. v. Doran , 1969 Fla. LEXIS 2268 ( 1969 )
City of Miami Beach v. Berns , 245 So. 2d 38 ( 1971 )
Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison , 296 So. 2d 473 ( 1974 )
Tribune Co. v. DML , 566 So. 2d 1333 ( 1990 )
Fla. Soc of Newspaper Editors, Inc. v. Fla., Psc , 543 So. 2d 1262 ( 1989 )
Marston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., Inc. , 341 So. 2d 783 ( 1976 )