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.

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.”