Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Autopsy Records Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill letting non‑HIPAA petitioners seek autopsy reports from probate court with redaction authority
Summary
A bill would let people who lack HIPAA authorization petition the Probate Division for an autopsy report, require notice to the chief medical examiner and the county state's attorney, allow the court to order full or redacted disclosure and set 'good cause' factors; the committee asked state's attorneys to advise on the evidentiary standard before voting.
The Senate Health & Welfare Committee on Feb. 10 reviewed a bill establishing a court petition process for access to autopsy reports by individuals who are not authorized under HIPAA.
Legislative counsel said the bill allows a petitioner to file an affidavit describing their relationship to the decedent and the reason for seeking the report, requires notice to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the county state's attorney, and permits the Probate Division of Superior Court to order that the office provide a copy of the autopsy report in whole or in part and to place limits on dissemination.
On standards, committee members and counsel discussed a proposed definition of "good cause" the court must find before releasing a report. Factors listed include the petitioner’s relationship to the decedent and family, whether disclosure is necessary for public evaluation of governmental performance, the seriousness of privacy intrusion, whether redaction or other least‑intrusive means could address the request, and availability of similar information in public records. Counsel said the language drew partly from Wyoming statute and that a judge had reviewed the draft and found it addressed earlier concerns.
The state's attorney’s office asked for guidance on the applicable evidentiary standard (for example, whether the court should require a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing proof) and the committee agreed to obtain the state's attorneys’ preferred language before finalizing the provision.
Committee chair said staff will continue to work with the Department of Health, the judge who reviewed the bill and the state's attorneys and aim to return the bill to the committee for closure and a possible vote once the concerns are resolved.
If enacted, the bill would create a judicial path for third‑party access while giving courts express authority to redact or otherwise limit dissemination to protect privacy.
