The Department is without authority to circumvent the PIA’s disclosure provisions in the name of administrative efficiency, nor may it become a fortress of secrecy immune from the PIA by virtue of its mission to investigate dangers to our collective health.

The lawsuit against the department was brought by a woman who had contracted hepatitis A from one of several restaurants she had visited in Baltimore County. She became very ill, was admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital four times, and suffered from the symptoms of the disease for 10 weeks. When she recovered, she wanted compensation from the restaurant. The Health Department investigator told her that it had discovered which restaurant had been the source of the problem, but it would not tell her which one. Supported by a "letter of advice," which had been co-authored by Jack Schwartz, chief counsel for opinions and advice, the department said the Health Code allows it to withhold all such information so that people cooperate with its investigations.

The Court of Special Appeals rejected this argument and sent the case back to the circuit court in Baltimore County for review consistent with this opinion.

Several holdings will be useful to newspapers seeking information of a similar nature.

• Ordinarily a court may give deference to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, but the court has a larger obligation to safeguard the legislature’s objectives to keep Maryland government records open.
• Labeling every inquiry as "research and study" defies the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, and would lead to an interpretation of the statute that is " illogical, unreasonable or inconsistent with common sense."
• The department’s desire to "foster cooperation from persons who may be spreading infectious disease" is not a sufficient ground to avoid disclosure under the Public Information Act. The department’s investigative powers are sufficient, the court said, to compel cooperation when needed.