Alaska Supreme Court Says Employer May Have Access to Employee's Mental Health Records
Under Alaska Stat. §§ 23.30.107 and 23.30.107, an employer is entitled to have access to an injured employee’s mental health records when such access is relevant to the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, even if the employee’s claim does not relate to a mental health condition, held the Supreme Court of Alaska [Leigh v. Alaska Children’s Servs., 2020 Alas. LEXIS 78 (July 10, 2020). The Court cautioned, however, that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board could impose reasonable limits to that access where the employee had not requested compensation related to her mental health.
Background
An employee broke her ankle when she slipped and fell in her employer’s icy parking lot. Following surgery she had a complicated recovery. Her employer began to controvert benefits related to the ankle about nine months after the injury. Three years after the injury, her employer requested that she sign a release allowing it to access all of her mental health records for the preceding 19 years because of her pain complaints. The employee asked for a protective order from the Alaska Board. The Board’s designee granted the protective order, and the employer appealed this decision to the Board. A Board panel reversed the designee’s decision. The employee petitioned the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission for review, but the Commission declined review. The Supreme Court then granted the employee’s petition for review.
Complicating the matter was the fact that the employee had several preexisting conditions not directly associated with her work injury. For example, she has attention deficit disorder (ADD), anxiety, and a mood disorder, and takes medication for these conditions.
Supreme Court Decision
The high court noted that releases in Alaska workers’ compensation cases were governed by two statutes: Alaska Stat. §§ 23.30.107 and 23.30.107. Here, the employee followed the procedure set forth in the statutes and sought a protective order within the allowed time frame. The Court indicated the statutory language of AS 23.30.107(a) suggested that the legislature intended to place some limits on access to claimants’ medical records, and the legislative history supported this. On the other hand, the main purpose of the legislation amending the Act’s provisions about obtaining releases and the Board’s review of discovery disputes was to set up a simple summary process for employers to obtain reasonable medical releases. As set out in the intent section of the bill, the legislature’s intent (as relevant to this provision) was that “claimants provide releases of information that allow employers and insurers and their agents to obtain promptly information needed to investigate and adjust claims” and “medical information relevant to claims be discoverable and be promptly provided” [Opinion p. 18-19]. The Court indicated it construed the statute, therefore, in light of that purpose.
What is “Relevant”
The Court concluded that even though the employee had not directly sought compensation related to mental health benefits, the record contained multiple references to the impact her mental health conditions might have on her treatment as well as her pain complaints, which were part of her claim for both medical treatment and disability. The Court concluded, therefore, that the Board appropriately decided that the employee’s mental health records were potentially relevant to a defense.
Board Can Impose Limits Based on Reasonable Considerations
The Court countered, however, that while the Board had placed some limitations on the mental health information that could be released to the employer, it was unclear what factors the Board had considered. The Board also required that the releases sought by the employer should be “appropriately modified,” but the Board did not provide details as to how the releases should be so modified.
The Court noted, for example, that the Board failed to indicate why disclosure of counseling records that included notes and bills from when the employee was a minor and were related to childhood trauma would be necessary for evaluation of the compensability of her injury. The Court added that even if medical providers must access records for treatment or evaluation, the proposed release had no restrictions on re-disclosure. They also specifically stated the records were no longer subject to federal privacy protections. The employee raised specific concerns during the proceedings that the Board did not address. The Court said that the Board, on remand, was required to scrutinize carefully the information requested to determine whether it was overly broad, particularly with respect to the time period covered by the release. The Board should also consider restrictions on re-release of the information and should make an appropriate record for further appeal if necessary.