Hassig v. New York State Department of Health Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An environmental group sought cancer data from a state agency under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The court upheld the agency’s denial, finding the data fell within a statutory exemption because it could be combined with public knowledge to identify individual patients.
Legal Significance: Establishes that an agency can deny a FOIL request by providing a “particularized and specific justification” showing how requested data, even if facially anonymous, could lead to personal identification when combined with other readily available information, thus falling within a statutory privacy exemption.
Hassig v. New York State Department of Health Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioners, an environmental action group, filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request with the New York State Department of Health (respondent). They sought records from the State Cancer Registry containing “cancer site specific diagnoses and deaths from the period 1976-1997 for St. Lawrence County.” To address privacy concerns, petitioners offered to exclude data sets where there were two or fewer records for a given year and zip code.
Respondent denied the request, invoking statutory exemptions under Public Health Law § 2402 and 42 U.S.C. § 280e, which prohibit the disclosure of information that identifies or could lead to the identification of individual cancer patients. In support of its denial, the Director of the State Cancer Registry submitted an affidavit. The affidavit explained that even with the petitioners’ proposed redactions, the released data could be combined with readily available community knowledge to identify specific individuals. For example, of 26 child cancer cases not covered by the petitioners’ exception, 18 were the only child diagnosed with cancer in their zip code in the year of diagnosis, and the remaining eight had a “unique combination of age group, gender, year of diagnosis and ZIP code,” making them easily identifiable.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the state agency meet its burden under the Freedom of Information Law to provide a particularized and specific justification for denying access to cancer registry data by demonstrating that the information could lead to the identification of individual patients?
Yes. The Department of Health properly denied the FOIL request because it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, c
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the state agency meet its burden under the Freedom of Information Law to provide a particularized and specific justification for denying access to cancer registry data by demonstrating that the information could lead to the identification of individual patients?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the standard for an agency's justification to deny a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco lab
Legal Rule
Under New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), government records are presumptively Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
Legal Analysis
The court began its analysis by affirming the strong public policy favoring Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.