Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Second clause of Exemption (c) privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the publics right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Commr of Real Property Dept, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980).

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Under the first clause of Exemption (c), the Department indicates that it has redacted individuals medical information because it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first clause of G.L. c. 4, 7(26)(c).

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). The Department indicated that patient names and medical information was redacted from the records under Exemption (c). Second clause of (c) - privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public's right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). The Department indicated that patient's name and medical information were redacted from the records under the first clause of Exemption (c). The in camera inspection of the records reveals that the patient's name, medical diagnostic information and rriedical data pertaining to the patient's body and injury to the body were redacted under the first clause of Exemption (c).

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). The Department has withheld the reports in their entirety due to individuals medical care, medical diagnostic information including injuries, mental health and treatment regarding specifically identified individuals under Exemption (c). However, the Department has not met its burden of segregating medical information from the incident reports drafted by the Department.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). The Department has withheld the reports in their entirety due to any medical information under the first clause of Exemption (c). However, the Department has not met its burden of segregating medical information from the incident reports drafted by the Department and providing the balance of the reports to Mr. Mclsaac.

Sanders requested any and all scientific test results performed on clothing connected to a fatal shooting on [a specific date], at [a designated location], as well as, any scientific tests results performed on clothing recovered from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and given to the Crime Laboratory on [the same date], for an examination.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). An individual's privacy interest in medical information survives death. See id. at 134. In addition to the February 8th cover letter, you provided an explanatory sheet for each redaction that explains "medical/mental health information" was redacted under Exemption (c).

The Department's response merely states "your information can be secured through the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Boston." The Department fails to provide any further explanation as to whether or not it possesses the requested records. The Department must clarify whether or not it possesses responsive records and provide such response in compliance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations.

The Offices April 15th response In its April 15th response, the Office advised, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ruled that she had died by suicide. Over the past year, this Office has collected, reviewed and compiled voluminous records as part of a thorough investigation.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Whereas the Division has properly denied Attorney Schneider's request under the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, and further whereas the status of Attorney Schneider's client provides no greater right of access under the ublic Records Law, this administrative appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Paul R. Schneider, Esq.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). In their citation of Exemption (c), the Department has not met its burden of specificity in claiming an exemption under the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. The December 20th response is simply a declaration of intention to utilize Exemption (c) to withhold records rather than explaining its applicability.

Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Neither in the request nor in the response does it appear that the identity of patients is known or could be reasonably identified. As such, I find the Commission has not met its burden of specificity with respect to the first clause of Exemption (c). Further, the Commission has failed to explain why any information, even if it does exist, could not be redacted.