Torrisi, Michael v. Lawrence, City of - Retirement Board (SPR 20261387)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1387 Gina Rizzo Executive Director Lawrence Retirement Board 354 Merrimack Street, Entry C Lawrence, MA 01843 Dear Ms. Rizzo: I have received the petition of Michael A. Torrisi, Esq., of Torrisi & Torrisi, P.C., appealing the response of the Leominster Retirement Board (Board) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 3, 2026, Attorney Torrisi requested: Please be advised that I represent [an identified individual], a City of Lawrence Firefighter from approximately 2000 to 2012. He was also a North Andover Firefighter from approximately 2012 until his death. . . . Prior to his appointment as a Firefighter, [an identified individual] was required to undergo a physical examination at the request of the City of Lawrence. . . . It is also believed he underwent a pre-employment physical with the Town of North Andover. [An identified individual] completed the exam satisfactorily and now requests a copy of the physician’s results. The Board responded on April 1, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Torrisi petitioned our office and this appeal, SPR26/1387, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Board provided additional information regarding this matter in an email to this office on April 16, 2026. Status of the Requestor In his appeal petition, Attorney Torrisi states that he is “the Attorney representing . . . [an identified individual’s] surviving spouse.” Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks 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

Gina Rizzo SPR26/1387 Page 2 April 27, 2026 access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, neither Attorney Torrisi’s status, nor that of his client, will play any role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. It is unclear if Attorney Torrisi may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Attorney Torrisi a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Torrisi contends, “[t]he City of Lawrence Retirement Board has indicated that this record exists and is in their possession.” He additionally indicates that he has “sent a request and [‘]HIPAA[’] release to . . . the Lawrence Retirement Board” and further notes that “this correspondence is [included]” with his petition. Upon review of the file and, based on information contained in the Board’s April 16, 2026 email to this office, it is my understanding that a copy of the “request and [‘]HIPAA[’] release[,]” as noted above, was not provided by Attorney Torrisi in his appeal to this office. Additionally, where Board’s April 1, 2026 response references a “[r]ecords request dated March 20, 2026[.]” it is my understanding that Attorney Torrisi did not provide this office with a copy

Gina Rizzo SPR26/1387 Page 3 April 27, 2026 of the Board’s initial response to his above February 3, 2026 request. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(g) (requestors shall provide to the Supervisor complete copies of all correspondence associated with the petition). Accordingly, I am unable to opine on this appeal at this time. If unresolved issues remain, Attorney Torrisi may file an appeal with this office with the necessary documents. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael A. Torrisi, Esq.