PHOENIX — ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns won't be learning which nursing homes have residents who have contracted COVID-19, at least not from the state.
In a 23-page order late Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury acknowledged that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ law "recognizes liberal inspection of public records.'' And he said the information being sought is definitely newsworthy.
But the judge also noted the materials are being gathered by the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Department of Health Services under a 2002 law that allows the governor to declare an Enhanced Surveillance Advisory. He said that law has various provisions making the information provided by nursing homes confidential.
About the only thing Coury conceded is the media outlets that filed suit may be entitled to information about the availability of "personal protective equipment.'' But he said that will require a full-blown trial to determine whether state health officials must provide it.
People are also reading…
In arguments to the court, attorney David Bodney said the public is entitled to the information.
He said the laws on confidentiality protect only the names of individuals. What his clients want and he said are entitled to are the pure numbers of residents of each facility who have contracted the virus and the numbers transferred to hospitals, not the names of any individual resident.
But Coury did not read the language of the statute so narrowly, saying the law protects all "medical information,'' regardless of whether it identifies individual patients.
The judge said he is simply following the law — at least as best he can understand it.
"It is not the position of the judicial branch to enact legislation or create policy,'' Courty wrote, saying that belongs elsewhere. And he said that while people have died, the economy has been impacted and personal lives have been altered, he cannot ignore the statutes.
"Were this judicial officer to ignore the law, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥n's Constitution — and its provisions of limited government and separation of powers — would be added to the list of COVID-19's victims,'' the judge said. "Although difficult in the face of this devilish virus, fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of the state of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ must prevail.''
He also pointed out that Gov. Doug Ducey has since amended his executive order to require that nursing homes tell relatives of those staying there if there are outbreaks. Anyone who is applying for admission to a nursing facility also is entitled to the same information.
Separation of powers aside, Coury said, the 2002 law is hardly a model of clarity.
He pointed out that state lawmakers, rather than relying on model legislation, opted to create the statutes on surveillance in cases of medical and health threats from scratch.
"The act — the legislation authorizing the actions at issue —- lacks clarity,'' leaving critical terms "undefined,'' he wrote.
He said no one has bothered to look at it for 18 years as there has not been a health emergency since that time.
"Nonetheless, if this decision illustrates nothing else, it highlights the need for the legislature to revisit the act and make it more workable for all concerned,'' Coury said. "In its present form, the ambiguous act does a disservice to the media, to government leaders, to the courts, and to all ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns.''
Friday's ruling does not mean nursing home data will remain confidential. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now collecting information from the facilities it regulates and has promised to make it public.
