Ronald Silvio v. Board of Registration in Medicine (SPR 20251870)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 14, 2025 SPR25/1870 Tara Douglas, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Board of Registration in Medicine 200 Harvard Mill Square, Suite 330 Wakefield, MA 01880 Dear Attorney Douglas: I have received the petition of Ronald Silvio appealing the response of the Board of Registration in Medicine (Board) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 2, 2025, Mr. Silvio requested the following: [1] The name of the current malpractice liability insurance provider for [an identified individual][;] [2] Whether the policy is active and in effect[;] [3] Any publicly disclosable records of past or pending complaints involving said provider[.] The Board provided a response on June 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Board’s response, Mr. Silvio petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1870, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Tara Douglas, Esq SPR25/1870 Page 2 July 14, 2025 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Board’s June 4th response In its June 4, 2025 response, the Board provided 31 pages of responsive records and cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to redact and withhold certain records. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Silvio states the following: [t]he redacted documents omit non-confidential metadata such as complaint dates, docket codes, general outcome descriptions (e.g., resolved, dismissed), and complaint source categories. These fields do not implicate HIPAA protections and are considered disclosable under Massachusetts law and nationwide public records practices ... This appeal is filed in connection with active litigation pending before Norfolk Superior Court (Silvio v. Nielsen Eye Center, Inc. et al., Docket No. 2582CV00663), in which Dr. Moreira is a named and implicated party. The redacted information may pertain directly to issues of pattern, disclosure, endorsement activity, or regulatory oversight—all material to legal claims under M.G.L. c. 93A and 176D. As such, heightened transparency is warranted. In its response, the Department stated that the 31 pages of responsive “records contain redactions as follows”: Physician personal data (such as home address, phone number, email address, social security number, date of birth, drug registration numbers) because it is data relating to a specifically named individual [and] [c]omplainant home address, email address, phone number, and date of birth. This information contains intimate details of a highly personal nature, and its disclosure may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The individuals’ privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. (see G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and (c); see also G.L. c. 66A, § 2; see also G.L. c. 93H; see also Board Policy 98-02). The Board also withheld medical information, health conditions and other personal information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part:

Tara Douglas, Esq SPR25/1870 Page 3 July 14, 2025 the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In his June 27, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Silvio advised this office that “this appeal is filed in connection with active litigation pending before Norfolk Superior Court. . . .” This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Silvio’s request, is active and ongoing in the Norfolk Superior Court. See Silvio v. Nielsen Eye Center, et al. (Norfolk Superior Court Docket No. 2582CV00663). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Silvio