Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, 79 N.Y.2d 106 (1992)

Responses regarding current treatment for disabilities on a driver’s license application are considered ‘medical histories’ and are exempt from disclosure under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Summary

Hanig, an attorney, sought an unredacted copy of a driver’s license application through FOIL, specifically the section asking about disabilities and treatments. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) redacted the applicant’s responses, citing the medical history exemption under FOIL. The court held that the disability information on the application constituted a ‘medical history’ and was therefore exempt from disclosure. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute and the intent to protect personal privacy supported this interpretation, regardless of whether the information was provided to a healthcare provider.

Facts

Pamela Jo Nielson was injured by a driver, Frank Jordan. Nielson’s attorney, Hanig, requested Jordan’s driver’s license application from the DMV. The DMV provided the application but redacted Jordan’s answers to the question about whether he had or was receiving treatment for any disabilities. The application listed specific conditions such as convulsive disorder, heart ailment, and mental disability. The DMV masked the responses citing Section 89 of the Freedom of Information Law deeming the information confidential.

Procedural History

Hanig’s request for an unredacted copy was denied by the DMV. The DMV’s Administrative Appeals Board affirmed the denial, citing a policy to mask medical information without the applicant’s consent. Hanig then filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the redacted portion concerned Jordan’s medical history. The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that the information was the type one would expect in a proper medical history. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether responses to questions regarding current treatment for disabilities on a driver’s license application constitute ‘medical histories’ exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) of FOIL.

Holding

Yes, because the plain language, the intent of FOIL, and the protection of personal privacy dictate that such information falls under the ‘medical histories’ exemption, regardless of whether it was provided to a healthcare provider or included in an employment application.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the redacted information was properly withheld. The court reasoned that FOIL exemptions, while narrowly construed, must be given their natural and obvious meaning consistent with legislative intent. The court emphasized that Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) is written in the disjunctive, meaning the ‘medical histories’ exemption applies independently of employment applications. The court stated, “[E]mployment, medical and credit histories or personal references of applicants for employment each enjoy exemption from disclosure.”

The court found that the legislative intent behind the exemption is to protect against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, and that disclosure of ongoing treatment for medical conditions threatens personal privacy. It rejected the argument that the exemption only applies to information provided to a health care provider, noting that the inquiry should focus on the nature of the information itself. “[T]he relevant inquiry is as to the nature of the information, not who compiled it, or where it appears, or whether it is a precise technical evaluation.”

The court found that there was no need to balance interests since the legislature had determined that the release of such information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court quoted Matter of Federation of N. Y. State Rifle & Pistol Clubs v New York City Police Dept., 73 NY2d 92, 97 stating that “Once it is determined that the requested material falls within a FOIL exemption, no further policy analysis is required.”