My understanding is that Mr. Sunahara was granted access because he qualified as having a tangible interest under the provisions of HRS 338-18. However the law states that the Director of Health gets to determine the manner of compliance and Mr. Sunahara was not permitted a long form copy nor was he permitted observation of the photocopying of the document.
Both the original jurisdiction court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that UIPA and the relevant Hawaii Revised Statutes were complied with by the Director of Health issuing the short form computer abstract, which is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii.
Sunahara was not granted access to a COPY of his sister’s BC OR even the FULL CONTENTS of his sister’s BC. Fuddy withheld the doctor’s name and signature, the mother’s name and signature, etc. What statute specifically forbids the disclosure of that information? Fuddy’s discretion does NOT include discretion to deny disclosure that is allowed by law.
So tell me what statute expressly forbids the HDOH from disclosing (to a party with a direct and tangible interest) the doctor’s signature on a birth certificate. What law authorized Fuddy to withhold that specific disclosure? I’m not talking about what form must be used - although Fuddy is bound to go through the procedures to officially change the Administrative Rules if she contradicts the Administrative Rules already in effect, and PHR Chapter 8b only allows computer printouts to be used with ABBREVIATED BC’s, not with standard BC’s. The Administrative Rules also say that a qualified requestor will be given only the non-confidential portion of the standard BC unless they specifically ask to see the confidential portion as well. Unless and until Fuddy goes through the proper procedure to change those administrative rules, she is legally bound to them and cannot forbid access to information expressly allowed by statute and the Administrative Rules.