New Jersey Rejects Request For Dolphin Necropsy Results, Cites "Medical Privacy" (muckrock.com) 228
v3rgEz writes: When a dolphin died in New Jersey's South River last year, Carly Sitrin wanted to know what killed it. So she filed a public record request to the NJ Department of Agriculture in order to get the necropsy results. The DOA finally responded last week with the weird decision to deny the release of the record on grounds of medical privacy. The response reads in part: "We are in receipt of your request for information (#W101407) under the auspices of the State’s
Open Public Records Act (O.P.R.A.). Specifically, you requested any and all reports associated with the necropsy of the dolphin that
strayed into the South River on August 5, 2015 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. This request
is denied as it would release information deemed confidential under O.P.R.A., specifically
information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation. (E.O. 26, McGreevey)"
How about cows? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hope when Governor Christie eats his next cow, nobody will tell him that it has mad cow's disease, since that would violate the privacy of the dead cow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the dolphin's privacy that would be violated...but the privacy of all the people who are on antidepressants and birth-control, the after-effects of which pass through sewage treatment and into the river.
That's my theory, anyway. The truth might be something far more insidious.
Re:How about cows? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey at least the dolphin wasn't depressed when it died and could have lots of unprotected sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I always love comments like this that assume all such decisions are made by the Governor and not some low level bureaucrat.
Re: (Score:3)
It's highly unlikely that this twisted logic decision was made by a "low level bureaucrat". More likely a "high level bureaucrat" (i.e. Christie) is hiding something which would be politically embarrassing.
Re: (Score:3)
What politically embarrassing item could that be? That this dolphin had secret information about the bridge closure surgically implanted into its cerebral cortex, and it was returning the plans to the princess?
Re: (Score:3)
That's no dolphin.
I'm not saying it was aliens, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What politically embarrassing item could that be?
That the water quality led directly or indirectly to the dolphins death, kind of like the beluga situation in the St-Laurence river
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely doubt that the Governor would ever make a decision at that level, even in a cover-up situation. It was either a bureaucrat who was either following the letter of the regulations too closely, or they decided that they couldn't be bothered.
If it was really that big a deal, there would be a troubleshooter who would deal with that who is a political appointee attached to some executive office.
If you think this trivial stuff bubbles up to the Governor regularly, you have no idea at the scale at whic
Re: (Score:3)
Christie has demonstrated (Bridgegate) that he has lots of minions to provide him with plausible deniability. So, yes, you are right it asserting it was probably not Christie himself. Most probably one of his minions covering up for the failings of government. I still doubt that it was a "low level bureaucrat" who came up with that tortured logic for denial... they're just not (allowed to be) that creative.
Re: How about cows? (Score:3)
Uhm, that "E.O 26, McGreevey" means the decision was based on an Executive Order, #26, enacted by former NJ Gov. Jim ("I am a gay American") McGreevey.
Ultimately the decision was made by a Gov., it was the Executive Order that led (required) the bureaucrat to deny the request.
Re: (Score:3)
You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions. What the Governor is on the hook for is not the initial decision but what he does once he is made aware of the decision.
What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions.
They do set policies and expectations. The bureaucrat that made this decision appears to have assumed his duty was to deny any request and then make up a reason to justify it. If Christie was the type of politician that believed in transparency, he would have made it clear that information should be public unless there was a very good reason to withhold it. This, along with BridgeGate [wikipedia.org], is an indicator of the type of politician Christie is. I, for one, am very happy to see his poll numbers at low single
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
Who's voting for low level bureaucrats? Seriously, when I was in this would have been a decision made by a SSgt, if that, backed up by a Lt and maybe a Capt.
The Base Commander wouldn't have a clue, and he's a lot lower than a Governor.
Re: (Score:2)
The general (or governor) owns the culture: the sense everyone has of what's normal, acceptable behavior, and what deserves the attention of somewhere higher on the chain. The base commander owns "implementing" that culture - if there's a pattern of behavior not in line with the culture, it's his problem. Notice I say "culture", not "regulations", as the former is what people actually do.
If this sort of obfuscation is normal in NJ, if it's the expectation that anything embarrassing should be hidden from t
Re: (Score:2)
That comes with a heavy assumption that the current 4 year politician some how can affect the entire culture of 250ish year old state. Even if a new Governor came in with the sole attempt to stop silly request like this from being denied he would run in to opposition from career employees who thought they could just wait him out. Now that an event has occurred the current individual in charge as a chance to access and retaliate in a proportional manor as deemed necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I knew someone in the NY State government who was a low level bureaucrat. She basically said, "Albany doesn't care unless something goes wrong, so we make sure that nothing goes wrong."
What she meant by that is that they ensure that no one makes noise about things and the upper level bureaucrats could not be bothered to care unless someone with clout complained.
I don't think this is because the bureaucrats don't care, mind you. Many of the people in various state services got into the business be
Re: (Score:2)
How large of a manor is proportionately necessary? And for how long do they have access?
Re: (Score:2)
People should always be careful who they vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
www.cowspiracy.com
The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.
Yep. Another case of "follow the money."
Re:The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
Re:The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Laziness to the point of making up non-existent rights? That's pretty much malice.
Re: (Score:2)
Put yourself in the position of a bureaucrat making the decision.
Scenario 1.
Allow the information out, later find that was an incorrect decision and possibly lose job.
Scenario 2;
Deny the request, let the appeal process resolve it and keep job.
Which would you chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... if this attracts the attention of high level bureaucrats in the capital, that person could be in for trouble. Yes, it makes sense to have the appeals process deal with it, but you do not want people in the state capital getting wind of your actions. Then you're in for a world of trouble.
I think this person just broke the First Law of State Bureaucracy: Thou shall not be noticed by the politicians.
Re: The water? (Score:3)
speaking of laziness... (Score:3)
speaking of laziness... if you had bothered to read the article, you would see that it quotes the regulation, and that the relevant text is "information concerning individuals." individual is a pretty common & well-defined legal term meaning a human person (or, rarely, artificial persons like corporations). I don't recall any legal precedent granting dolphins personhood, so this is very clearly a misapplication of law.
Re: (Score:2)
He's really a PETA [cnn.com] plant. I knew it! They're everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm... Pita plant. I'm opening a gyro farm.
Re: speaking of laziness... (Score:3)
Not to get circular here, but PETA meat comes from vegans
Re:speaking of laziness... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, having seen said dolphin in said river personally (i.e. my commute passed this incident daily while the dolphin was hanging about), one has to keep in mind that the local authorities decided the best way to deal with this was to have police on jet skis whizzing around in the river for long chunks of time. Ostensibly because they needed to keep the gawkers from molesting the dolphin, but also... just possibly mind you... getting paid OT for jetskiing full blast someplace you would other times be cited for might have been to much fun and loads of free cash for those involved.
This leaves three ready possibilities where OPRA would be stymied, from most likely to least likely.
1) The medical examiner report is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Wording of the statute aside, administrative guidelines interprets them to mean that ongoing criminal investigations are excluded from opra, and the ME records may simply get covered under that umbrella.
2) The animal died from the activities of authorities, the autopsy contains personally identifiable information of people involved, and the request was worded as submitted to not cover such extraneous information. Normally, they would redact the questionable info, but if said jet skiing po-po or similar managed to fatally injure the dolphin, they might take the opportunity and run with it if the submitter provided such an opportunity.
3) The officer(s) policing the dolphin had herpagonasyphilaids and managed to transmit it to the dolphin somehow. In which case, it would be releasing HIPAA protected info regarding an individual if they release names outright, or the equivalent which unambiguously identifies someone despite not being an explicit naming, which opra doesn't cover.
Reality is that the dolphin crawled up an estuary a pretty good ways. They tried to scare it back towards the ocean and it returned anyway. The sucker was in all likelihood going to die there at some point and wasn't well. The actions of the authorities may have accelerated that a bit, but mostly it just pissed away funds the state and county were short of anyway as recovery form superstorm sandy was still going on and had had a serious impact on property tax revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Executive Order 26, McGreevy. It's pretty clear that the "individuals" whose medical records are exempt from disclosure are humans; it would be a stretch for it to include dolphins. [state.nj.us]
As for disclosing the water is polluted, I doubt that's the issue. This is New Jersey, we know the water's polluted.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
To paraphrase the HHGTTG movie:"But this isn't the Aquatic Mammal Necropsy Release Request form. Those are blue."
Re: (Score:3)
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
Re:The water? (Score:5, Funny)
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
To be fair, it was carrying a knife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The water? (Score:4, Funny)
Or what looked like a knife. Most likely the dolphin failed to respond when told to raise its hands.
Officer: "should I shoot?"
Dispatcher: "is it white or black?"
Officer: "it's kind of grey."
Dispatcher: "have to get back to you on that..."
Re:The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it could just be the default response for any document from the medical examiner, and their computer system lacks the distinction between human and animal medical exams.
A small media circus is still probably the only way to get the documents, so here we go?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, If I lived in NJ I would be really annoyed the state wasted money performing a necropsy on a non-food non endangered animal, that had stayed from its usual habitat anyway.
Seems like pretty stupid allocation of resources.
Re:The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this shakes out as a public safety issue and/or government corruption/cover-up, then it would be money well spent.
Re:The water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they didn't actually do an autopsy and just billed a bunch of hours, then denied the request hoping it would go away, and now they're scrambling to whip up something that looks real?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, If I lived in NJ I would be really annoyed ..
You can stop right there and your statement is accurate.
Re:The water? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it could be that this is the rubber stamp that is always applied to medical records when they are requested.
It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could be that this is the rubber stamp that is always applied to medical records when they are requested.
It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?
Re: (Score:3)
Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?
No idea.
But it is easy enough for me to see the scenario:
A request comes across my desk for a medical record. I consult my little cheat sheet of requests which are automatically denied. Lo-and-behold, medical records is on the list. I ink up my deny stamp and give it a good whack on the request. Next issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the department which does the autopsy even handle OPRA requests, or is it automatically forwarded to the legal council section first? My guess is it hit the desk of first line support, it said medical, and they stamped it "Denied" as a matter of course. There's no sense in having an entire department of OPRA service at every single executive division, and having $16/hr drones check the paperwork for obvious issues at a central office is easier and cheaper than having actual lawyers review everything.
Be
Re: The water? (Score:2)
Putting DOA and human atopsies together somehow starts making me wonder if this is a case of Mulder and Sculley. All that is missing is the smoking man.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I was actually thinking the same thing.
I am excited for the new X-Files...
Re: (Score:3)
It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster [merriam-webster.com] lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.
Of course, when the law was written the s
Re: (Score:2)
It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).
If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster [merriam-webster.com] lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.
Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.
Good points. The EO also makes reference to "natural persons' later, adding to the confusion. But I think you are correct in stating the person who denied the request probably saw "medical Records" and their mandatory annual training said medical records are not subject to FOIA requests and thus denied the request. In addition, it's easier (read safer) to deny a request and let someone higher in the food chain overrule it than to release something that shouldn't be released. You can always point to some rul
legal definition is more relevant (Score:2)
the legal definition is more relevant. try http://thelawdictionary.org/in... [thelawdictionary.org]
Re: The water? (Score:2)
Sounds to me like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like someone just didn't want to go through the administrative hassle of gathering the information, copying it, and handing it over. Obviously, that shouldn't be allowed unless the DOA can provide some evidence that it will compromise the privacy of an actual person.
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds to me like... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this also is a good theory.
I have been told by people who work in social services that the government ALWAYS denies the first request for government services like disability. Doesn't matter if it was endorsed by a medical professional or whatever, the first request is always denied. That ends up weeding out a huge percentage of the people applying since many of them shrug and give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry then you would know that dolphins getting aggressive when they are frisky isn't an urban legend... stay away from hippie chicks w/ dolphin tattoos that's how you get hepatitis.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it: politicians, especially the corrupt ones, hate FOIA. Properly responding to one without a goddamn court order is closer to a fire-able offense than denying one is!
Medical privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*).
But it's a fucking animal that died in public waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
People who wish to know have a right to that information.
I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
The excuse "Medical privacy" when it comes to a wild animal is really causing the person using it to look like a fool.
Re: (Score:3)
The excuse "Medical privacy" when it comes to a wild animal is really causing the person using it to look like a fool.
The person who rejected the FOIA request 'signed' his name in Comic Sans. This is not a person who is concerned about looking like a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
Probably someone who didn't add "human" to the Scope of the regulation in question. I'm sure no one thought it was an appropriate excuse for an animal and thus we end up in the situation we're in, applying regulations in stupid scenarios.
come on, RTFA (Score:2)
right there in the article -
exemption applies to "information concerning individuals,"
individual means person. human. not dolphin. see http://thelawdictionary.org/in... [thelawdictionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
somebody who had 10 more to review and only 15 minutes till lunch.
>picks up paper
>see's word "necropsy"
>"hey sid, what's a necropsy?"
>"it's like an autopsy"
>[DENIED]
Re: (Score:3)
But wouldn't it be "veterinary" and not "medical"? Technically, "medical" can only apply to humans, no?
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of medical [reference.com] does not make that differentiation.
you skipped over the important bits. RTFA (Score:2)
the exemption applies to "information concerning individuals" which you would have known if you'd actually read the article.
individual is a commonly used legal term, and it sure as shit doesn't mean dolphins. it means persons. humans. thus, the regulation for medical record exemptions only applies to humans.
Re:Medical privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dolphins who live primarily in salt water can live just as well in fresh water provided there is enough food for them to eat.
As a matter of fact, some species of dolphin do live in fresh water.
This whole thing (Score:3, Funny)
just sounds fishy to me.
Prescott Pharmaceuticals, the side effects maybe.. (Score:2, Troll)
Prescott Pharmaceuticals, says the side effects from dumping the reduction of Vagisil into Gardasil into the ocean may include: meaty run off, star shower toe, fickle rectum, and nunya dolphin*.
*nunya dolphin means none-of-ya-damn-business-about-the-damn-dolphin-death so we are sealing it for confidentiality.
Remember - Prescott Pharmaceuticals, good for what ails your smelly dolphin.
Re: (Score:2)
I suffer from fickle rectum you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Heh.. "ticklish clods" would be a side effect of Prescott Pharmaceuticals's topical creme line.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! Occasionally I flex the withered f' bone and get something amusing out there.
It's a Coverup! (Score:2)
The State of NJ flogged the dolphin.
Re: (Score:2)
Or locked them in gestation crates...
Response menu: (Score:5, Funny)
How would you like to respond to this request for information:
[1] Provide information
[2] Deny information
Congratulations! You've decided to "Deny information".
What kind of form letter would you like to respond with:
[1] Military secret
[2] Medical privacy
[3] Area 51-related incident
[4] The dog ate our report
[5] Major government coverup of unspecified nature
Do you wish to include additional information?
[1] No
[2] Yes
Please enter additional information:
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Ready to send?
[1] No
[2] Yes
The only way "medical privacy" would apply ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, I'd say "Only in Chicago," but apparently you weren't kidding about New Jersey [nj.com].
SMH.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Dolphins are people too. (Score:2)
But where does it stop? Dogs? Squirrels? Insects? E Coli?
Dare I flush the toilet without permission?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it *is* New Jersey....
It stops when... (Score:2)
...the Dolphins leave and say "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
I'm not saying it's mermaids... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no! It's "aquatic apes". The theory and current research were condensed down into an tv show on Animal Planet. Totes.
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv... [animalplanet.com]
Not when it violates privacy acts. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds fishy... (Score:2)
norealtextherewaitingoutthetimerandhopingit'senough...
World War Z has started (Score:2)
Someone find Rick Grimes and KORRAL!
Smells fishy, if you ask me (Score:2)
(pun partially intended.... yes, I know dophins are not fish).
There is absolutely *NO* privacy law anywhere that extends to the privacy of animals other than humans except to the extent that they may have human caregivers whose privacy is to be respected.
I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.
It's not that complicated. You're an entry-level public employee who has been given the job of answering FOIA requests. There's a training class or two, perhaps live, perhaps online, where they try to cover the laws that are relevant. They certainly cannot spend the time to do so word by word, delving into the maze of twisty little passages, all alike, that is the law. There are probably Powerpoints with bullet points. "Things that are exempt from release". "C. Medical records".
Also probably front loaded i
Re: (Score:2)
Who could file such a lawsuit? The dolphin's next of kin?
Re: (Score:2)
Who could file such a lawsuit?
You do realize that the training which listed possible results of incorrect decisions would not be about specific requests, don't you? A classroom bullet point that says there is a potential for a lawsuit if a request is approved improperly wouldn't be considering that a dolphin would file the lawsuit.
A decision based on training that says "medical records are exempt" stands alone; it is well outside the job description of the person making the decision to try to guess who might object and who might file a
Problems with the HIPAA underwater consent system (Score:5, Funny)
1. Relatively few dolphins can read English, though the New Jersey ESL program is working on that.
2. Because the dolphin version of the HIPAA consent form is printed on those waterproof pads that divers use to write notes to each other, many individuals have experienced trouble holding a grease pencil in their mouths and writing a legible signature at the bottom of the form. Furthermore, individuals with the requisite agility to accomplish this task tend not to be the dolphins who can read the form in the first place.
3. In dolphin culture, only the alpha bull of a pod has the legal authority to sign for the release of medical data on a deceased podmate. In the specific case at hand, the NJ Department of Agriculture was unable to obtain a validly signed release.
4. The head of the NJ DoA, Jerry "Three Fingers" Fibonacci, is under indictment for bribing certain dolphin pod chieftains, using prime tuna from his seafood processing business, to ignore reporting of river pollution in the state of New Jersey. He is suspected of involvement in this specific case. But even if Fibonacci is eventually convicted, legal questions about the translation accuracy of dolphin testimony are intricate enough that they may have to be resolved by the SCOTUS.
Really strange ruling (Score:2)
Furthermore there are a lot of US laws that derive from that right. A right to privacy is part of the basis for the right to home schooling, as well as the right to get an abortion, and the legal right for sodomy. (Lawrence vs Texas). Does that mean that consensual sex with a dolphin is now legal in the state of New Jersey?
Not the first time this happened (Score:2)
Back in 2002 a giraffe dies at the National Zoo [latimes.com]
Hidden Death (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone thought the label said "poisson."
Re: (Score:2)
More reasonable, but not acceptable.
It is rather important to know if our neighborhood's bats are rabid. So important, that the information ought not to be suppressed when/if a neighbor is bit. This has nothing to do with a diagnosis of the neighbor, it's about the public interest in a health hazard.
T