Committee hears personal testimony and judicial concerns on S.210 to allow court access to autopsy reports

A Health & Welfare committee hearing on S.210 on Wednesday featured an emotional anonymous witness who urged lawmakers to provide a judicial avenue for families to obtain autopsy reports and a legal review from Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney cautioning that the bill, as written, leaves substantive gaps.

An unidentified witness told the committee she lost her 40-year-old daughter in November 2021 and struggled to obtain the medical examiner's autopsy report because a former partner became the children's legal guardian. "Never did it occur to me that I, as her mother, would not have access to her report," the witness said, describing repeated contact with the medical examiner's office that stopped after parentage was legally determined.

Katie McLennan of the Office of Legislative Counsel framed the measure as creating a new subsection governing autopsy reports: the first paragraph preserves current HIPAA-based disclosures, while subdivision 2 would let a person petition a court for access if the superior court finds the petitioner has demonstrated a "legitimate reason."

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney told the committee that the bill's b1 provision — which relies on heirs-at-law under Vermont intestacy rules (Title 14 citations referenced during testimony) — may exclude parents in some intestacy scenarios. "If, for instance, in a case where there is a dissident and they have children ... the parents would not, in that hierarchy, be an heir at law," he said, noting that naming specific categories of people who may receive reports would be a legislative policy choice.

Judge Zoney raised substantial concerns about b2, the petition path to probate. He said the bill "uses the undefined term legitimate reason" with no factors or examples for courts to apply, and it provides no notice or objection mechanism for special administrators or estate representatives. "There is no criteria, no factors, or any examples of what constitutes a legitimate reason," he said, warning this could produce inconsistent outcomes among courts and place an administrative burden on probate divisions.

He also flagged that the statute allows the court to order the medical examiner to provide a copy without addressing redactions, partial disclosures or subsequent dissemination, which could result in an "all or nothing" outcome where the entire report must be released if a court finds a legitimate interest.

Legislative counsel and committee members discussed alternatives, including expressly naming recipients in b1 (for example, parents, adult children or guardians) or borrowing statutory language used in other states. The judge cited other jurisdictions' approaches — he referenced Wyoming and Florida statutes in testimony — as possible models that define standards such as "good cause."

Committee members signaled they will consult the Judiciary and the Department of Health for follow-up and asked witnesses to submit written testimony to staff. The committee did not take a vote on S.210 at the hearing and said it will continue work during markup to clarify standards, notice provisions and any redaction or dissemination limits.

Next steps: Staff requested written testimony be submitted to Calista for the committee record; members said the Judiciary committee and Health Department will be asked to review language before markup.