No it's not. A hospital would be, but not the department of health.
The Department of Health is also the vital records repository in that state (as Departments of Health are in many states). Birth, is usually a medical procedure.
The DOH doesn't have anything to do with administering the procedure. Their disclosure laws aren't related to HIPAA.
What has failed is any attempt to release a Hawaii vital record to an individual who is not covered under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b). Every attempt to force release to individuals not covered by 338-18(b) in 12 tries through the Hawii courts has failed.
All you're doing is proving my point. Hawaii is refusing to comply with its own disclosure laws. Orly's subpoena fits the direct and tangible interest rule, but the DOH is simply refusing to acknowledge this. They have no compelling reason to deny the disclosure. You certainly haven't shown one. p
Hawaii courts have consistently ruled that your interpretation of their disclosure laws is incorrect.
There is just no way around the fact that every single judge that has had this issue before him or her, from district court to appellate court panels to the state Supreme Court to the federal district court has ruled unanimously that you are wrong.
For example, in Wolf v. Obama, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of UIPA do not take precedence over the requirements of HRS 338-18’s categories of persons considered to have a direct and tangible interest in gaining access to a confidential birth record.
WILLIAM WOLF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORETTA FUDDY, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawai`i, Defendant-Appellee.
Plaintiff-Appellant William Wolf (Wolf) timely appeals from (1) the “Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties,” which was entered on April 25, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1 in favor of Defendant-Appellee Loretta Fuddy (Fuddy), in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health (DOH), State of Hawai`i, as to Wolf’s claims that he is entitled to access all birth records of President Barack Hussein Obama, II (President Obama); (2) the April 25, 2012 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed on December 20, 2011;” and (3) the January 27, 2012 “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Complaint to Compel Agency to Disclose Public Records Under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), Filed on September 30, 2011.”
Wolf argues that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for summary judgment because (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 338-18 does not bar access to an individual’s birth records when that individual waives his or her right to confidentiality; (2) the Hawai`i Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (Modified), HRS § 92F, provides for access by Wolf to the requested records based on the statute’s rules of construction and purpose; and (3) the federal constitution prohibits any state law or state action which denies or obstructs access to a current president’s birth records.