Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Autopsy Report Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Human Services reviews S210 to create probate-court path for autopsy-report access
Summary
The House Human Services Committee heard a walk-through of S210, a bill creating a probate-court petition process so people not authorized under federal privacy law can seek autopsy reports; the bill allows redaction and distribution limits and gives county state's attorneys a 14-day notice and opportunity to object.
The House Human Services Committee on Thursday reviewed S210, a Senate bill that creates a court process allowing people who are not authorized under federal privacy law to petition the probate division for all or part of a deceased person’s autopsy report.
Senator Cummings, the bill’s reporter, told the committee the measure grew from a constituent’s experience in which a mother could not obtain her adult daughter’s autopsy report after the children’s father returned and established legal guardianship. "Only the daughter's immediate descendants ... could get the autopsy report," Cummings said, describing the family's pain and the bill’s intent to provide a narrow remedy in rare cases.
Katie McMahon of the Office of Legislative Council said the bill first restates existing federal protections and then creates a new path: an individual who is not authorized under HIPAA may petition the probate division and must file an affidavit describing their relationship to the decedent and the reason for the request. The petitioner must notify the office of the chief medical examiner and the county state's attorney within five days; those offices may respond within 14 days, she said.
McMahon described the court’s role in balancing interests: a judge may order disclosure in whole or in part, require redactions, and limit dissemination. The statute lists factors for the court to consider, including the petitioner’s relationship to the decedent, the seriousness of the intrusion into privacy, whether disclosure is necessary for public evaluation of governmental performance, and whether redaction or other less intrusive means are available.
Committee members focused on the state's‑attorney notice and response period. Representative Donahghue asked whether a county state's attorney objection would block release; members noted the provision was added at the state's‑attorneys’ request and acknowledged that, in practice, an objection would be a significant factor—potentially preventing release in many cases. "That's how I would read it," one member said when discussing objection by the state's attorney.
Senator Ruth Hardy, who introduced the bill in the Senate, described the constituent’s situation and said the bill was intended to provide an avenue for people who otherwise lack standing under the order-of-priority rules. Hardy said a local domestic‑violence program, Atria, referred the constituent and that she would be invited to testify if she wishes.
Members agreed to invite Judge Zone (name transcribed as "Zone") and other stakeholders for further testimony next week to clarify how courts and prosecuting offices would implement the petition process. No committee vote on S210 was taken at the walk-through; staff and members signaled intent to continue review and to consider potential drafting adjustments.
The committee noted an effective date provision in the draft (July 1) and asked staff to confirm drafting details around section citations and how the petition interacts with existing authority to order autopsies.
