FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Patrice Courtney
and Citizen Publications,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-128
Office of the
Chief Medical xaminer of the State of Connecticut,
Respondent July 1, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 29, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated April 8, 1986 the complainant Courtney made a request of
the respondent for a copy of the autopsy report on one Sindy White, deceased.
3.
By letter dated April 24, 1986 the respondent denied the request stating
that pursuant to 19-525-10(c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies records of this type may only be provided to the next of kin or
persons acting in their behalf. The
respondent further stated that the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations is
currently involved in litigation involving access to the types of records that
have been requested and that until this issue has been resolved, records of the
type requested are non-disclosable.
4.
From denial of access to the requested autopsy report, the complainant
appealed to the Commission by complaint filed on May 6, 1986.
Docket #FIC
86-128
Page 2
5.
It is found that the requested autopsy report, which shall be construed
to include related toxicology and other laboratory reports, constitutes a
public record under 1-18a(d) and
1-19(a), G.S., and must be disclosed under 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S., unless otherwise exempt.
6.
The respondent claims that the requested report is exempt from
disclosure pursuant to 19-525-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies.
7.
It is found that 19-525-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies provides for disclosure of autopsy reports to persons with certain
specific interests therein.
8.
It is also found, however, that a regulation of a state agency does not
supersede the disclosure provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
9.
It is therefore concluded that 19-525-10 does not exempt the
subject report from disclosure unless such report is found to be exempt under a
provision of 1-19, G.S.
10.
The respondent also claims that the report is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S., as a medical or similar file, the disclosure
of which would constitute an invasion of the personal privacy of the decedent
and her family.
11.
It is found that the autopsy report contains a description of the
external appearance of the deceased, including a description of organs, old and
new injuries, a toxicology report and an internal examination.
12.
It is found that the autopsy report constitutes a medical file within
the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13.
It is also found, however, that disclosure of the subject autopsy report
would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy of either the deceased or
her family.
14.
It is therefore concluded that the requested report is not exempt from
disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
15.
The respondent has stated the requested report would have been released
to the complainant Courtney, provided the complainant had received a written
authorization of release from the decedent's family.
Docket #FIC
86-128
Page 3
16.
It is found that permission for disclosure from the decedent's family is
not a statutory precondition for such disclosure, but is merely a practice
adopted by the respondent.
17.
In the absence of statutory authority, it is concluded that under
1-19, G.S., the respondent cannot create a precondition to disclosure of a
public record.
18.
At the hearing before the Commission, the respondent requested an in
camera inspection of the autopsy report by the presiding officer.
19.
Pursuant to 1-21j-35(a) of the Freedom of Information Commission's
Regulations, in camera inspections by the presiding officer are
prohibited. The respondent's request
was therefore denied.
20.
It is found that the respondent failed to show by documentary evidence
or argument why an in camera inspection would change the legal conclusions
which are contained herein.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent shall provide the complainant Courtney with a copy of the
autopsy report more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the findings,
above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 25, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission