Now
Fair
24°
High
32°
Low
24°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Bruning: Regional center burial records private

Comments 16 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY ERIC OLSON / The Associated Press

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:42:31 am CDT



OMAHA — An opinion by the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office upholds a policy that prohibits the Hastings Regional Center from making public the names of 957 people buried in the institution’s cemetery between 1888 and 1959.

San Francisco attorney Thomas Burke, on behalf of the Adams County Historical Society, asked the state Health and Human Services to release burial records at the former insane asylum.

Story Photo
Attorney General Jon Bruning

HHS said it could not release names of those buried because of statutes protecting patient privacy.

Burke, a Hastings native, then sought the attorney general’s opinion on whether privacy laws should protect former patients who have died, some almost 100 years ago.

Burke said he was surprised and disappointed by the opinion, written by assistant attorney general Dale Comer. Burke, who received the opinion by mail Monday, said he hoped to continue pursuing the matter.

“That letter won’t be the last word on this,” Burke said. “If I don’t win in court, I’ll get it going in the Legislature. I’m not exactly someone who goes away.”

Adams County Historical Society executive director Catherine Renschler said Monday night that she had not spoken with Burke or read the opinion. She said the decision to go to court or seek a change in state law would be made by the historical society’s board.

Renschler has said she receives several inquiries a month from people who want to verify whether they have a family member buried at the regional center. People buried in the cemetery are identified only by patient numbers on small headstones.

Advocates of opening burial records say it’s a matter of human decency to acknowledge that former institution patients existed.

Laws and policies on releasing names of people buried in state institution cemeteries vary across the nation. No comprehensive list of states that have made the names public is available, but Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, South Carolina, Maine and Wisconsin have done so.

In Nebraska, families can obtain patient records, including burial information, by court order on a “need-to-know” basis. Renschler said families shouldn’t have to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer to find out burial information.

HHS cited three statutes in denying access to the burial records:

71-961 — “All records kept on any subject shall remain confidential except as otherwise provided by law.” The patient and his or her attorney or guardian are among the exceptions.

71-962 — Anyone who “breaches the confidentiality of records required by section 71-961 shall be guilty of a Class II misdemeanor in addition to any civil liability which he or she may incur for such actions.”

83-109 — This statute specifically addresses state institution patients and limits access to their records to a handful of state and federal agencies. It notes that the records are available if the patient signs off or there is a court order.

Comer, in his opinion, also pointed to two previous attorney general opinions in backing HHS. One, in 1985, said that although records of a county ambulance service were open to the public, information on patients using the service should be withheld. Another opinion, in 2006, said that the name and identifying information on an involuntarily committed patient who escaped from a state institution should be withheld from the media.

Burke said common sense should prevail in the end.

“I’m quite confident the citizens of Nebraska aren’t going to find it illegal for the names of people buried at the regional center to be revealed,” he said. “It perpetuates the stigma that the people who were in these institutions are lesser individuals, and that’s wrong.”


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Locke wrote on May 22, 2007 9:15 am:
" I find this ruling fascinating. Usually these sorts of patient privacy protections end with the death of the patient. Now we are being told that in Nebraska, one can not even release the names of dead patients who died in the care of the state. Such a restriction, I believe, only protects the state. Perhaps, they are trying to "protect" us from some sort of criminal activity that occured in these institions. Makes me wonder. "

 Rae wrote on May 22, 2007 9:36 am:
" These people had names. Where is dignity in their life and death?? "

 whatever wrote on May 22, 2007 9:43 am:
" Bruning never ceases to amaze me. What is Mr. Bruning trying to hide? "

 Enough already wrote on May 22, 2007 10:51 am:
" These are FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS and are not at the discretion of the state to release. In fact, many of the people who died and were buried there had families who disowned them once they were admitted. Next of kin were notified in the event of deaths, however, many families did not have the means to bury them and therefore declined to have the remains shipped to them. It is not about dignity, it is about privacy. It was also very common for families to be embarrassed that their family members were admitted to facility and there was a stigma associated with that. In order to avoid any embarassment or stigma to a family, they would go to extreme measures in order for people to not find out about an admission of their family members. Society was quite different 100 years ago. We have come a long way in accepting behavioral and mental illness since then and just because it is more commonplace and accepted now does not mean we have the right to infringe on privacy issues. When a family disowns you, where is the dignity in that? Where is the dignity for what these people were admitted for? Do your research before you go and accuse people of wrongdoing and remember that times were different back then. It was an entirely different social setting and also, put yourself in their shoes. If it was such a social disgrace for you to be admitted to a regional center and your family didn't want anything to do with you after you were admitted and they didn't want your remains if you happened to die while you were there, would you want your name posted on a marker for no one to ever come visit? "

 Mike Honcho wrote on May 22, 2007 11:04 am:
" It seems to me that the law is very clear on this issue...I don't know why people want to make this out to be Bruning's fault. Oh yeah, because they don't like Bruning...law be damned, Bruning is, and will always be, wrong in their eyes. Got a problem with this situation? Then go to your state senator...after all, THEY are the ones who make the laws. "

 Agree with Bruning wrote on May 22, 2007 11:05 am:
" I have to say, he's right. Only immediate family should be allowed to release the names. There may be families who do not want their loved one's name released, it doesn't mean the family doesn't recognize them as a person, maybe they're trying to protect the dignity of their loved one, depending on the families and the deceased ones beliefs. There are too many nosey people who would love to get ahold of these names, not to recognize them as human beings, but to scrutinize them and their families. I think the family should have the ultimate say here. "

 Ex-Pat wrote on May 22, 2007 12:11 pm:
" Numbered headstones?! This reads like something out of a horror novel. Not even the decency of a name in death? God save us all from "protection" by the state. "

 Compromise wrote on May 22, 2007 12:32 pm:
" I'm all for protecting people's privacy, but forever? Why can't this be like US Census data which is confidential for 70+ years before being made public? "

 Mike McDermott wrote on May 22, 2007 1:28 pm:
" The Attorney General's office and HHS never cease to amaze me. I have alleged that my hospital medical papers were not only accessed without my permission, but were altered. Neither the Attorney General or HHS did anything. Are they waiting for me to die to honor my rights? "

 Get off Colburn and Bruning wrote on May 22, 2007 3:23 pm:
" The following is cut and pasted directly from the statutes. Seems like Ms. Colburn is doing her job as required by State statute. Seems like the AGs office can read the statute. Mr. Burke and others would have people ignore the law. What kind of an attorney is that? If you don't like the law, contact your legislative representative and change it. Sections 71-901 to 71-962 shall be known and may be cited as the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act. Section 71-961 Subject's records; confidential; exceptions. (1) All records kept on any subject shall remain confidential except as otherwise provided by law. Such records shall be accessible to (a) the subject, except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, (b) the subject's legal counsel, (c) the subject's guardian or conservator, if any, (d) the mental health board having jurisdiction over the subject, (e) persons authorized by an order of a judge or court, (f) persons authorized by written permission of the subject, (g) agents or employees of the Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure upon delivery of a subpoena from the department in connection with a licensing or licensure investigation by the department, (h) individuals authorized to receive notice of the release of a sex offender pursuant to section 83-174, (i) the Nebraska State Patrol or the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 69-2409.01, or (j) the Office of Parole Administration if the subject meets the requirements for lifetime community supervision pursuant to section 83-174.03. Section 71-962 Violations; penalty. Any person who willfully (1) files or causes to be filed a certificate or petition under the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act or the Sex Offender Commitment Act, knowing any of the allegations thereof to be false, (2) deprives a subject of any of the rights granted the subject by either act or section 83-390, or (3) breaches the confidentiality of records required by section 71-961 shall be guilty of a Class II misdemeanor in addition to any civil liability which he or she may incur for such actions. "

 Grand-daughter of former mental patient wrote on May 22, 2007 3:44 pm:
" Thank heaven for Mr. Burke. It's interesting that it took an attorney from out of state to pursue this matter. "

 Attorney wrote on May 22, 2007 3:58 pm:
" An AG opinion is not law. It is his opinion announcing the stance the State will take in this matter. He is forcing people, and the taxpayers, to go through the expense of litigation. Those laws are not, in fact, all that clear. There are statutes dealing with death, as well. The death of anyone is required to be made public record. So, generally, when two statutes conflict, the more specific one rules. Since the only thing being asked for is the death record (not the treatment records) of these people, it seems to me the names should be made public. But, I could be wrong. Looks like the taxpayers will have to pay for Bruning and HHS to defend this lawsuit. "

 Let them rest wrote on May 22, 2007 4:48 pm:
" Please let them rest in peace. Many of these patients lived tormented lives. Now that they are at peace, please let them be. Their names are well known to the only one who needs to know...the one who truly cares for them...God the Father. The only others who really would need access to the records, the families, already have that right. Anyone else is just being curious. "

 Amy wrote on May 22, 2007 5:22 pm:
" The records for the patients birth and death should be made public! I don't think that the specifics of each person's admittiance should be made public but for God's sake the people buried there are individuals, not NUMBERS!! Think about it, would you like to be left all alone with no name on your grave so that your family could find you later? I have been doing genealogy for almost 10 years and every year I visit many cemeteries to honor ALL my ancestors. Even the one who killed himself because he had mental problems. He deserves just the same amount of respect and rememberance as my well-loved grandparents. How dare the State to deny these people, these HUMAN BEINGS, their rights to their family even after they have passed away! And to "Let Them Rest", they may have had tormented lives, maybe they were elderly and were senile and were put their by their family because the family had no other choice. You are a hurtful person to deny anyone their family! How would you like to be left like that with just a tiny stone with nothing on it but a number. How horrible! "

 Rights dont extend wrote on May 22, 2007 5:28 pm:
" beyond death, there is no patient doctor privilage! "

 Shawn wrote on May 23, 2007 9:17 am:
" How does everyone know they want to be recognized? Did you go ask one of them? Maybe their family put them there and they were greatly resentful of that. Do you think they really want that family coming to find them now? Maybe they finally found peace in anonymity. The fact is, you don't have a clue, so don't try to speak for the dead. "

Ads by Yahoo!