FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Gary S. Levine,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-021

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction; and State
of Connecticut, Department of Correction,

 

 

Respondent

May 9, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 13, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated December 12, 2000, the complainant made a request to the respondents for:

 

a.       a copy of all requests submitted on the Connecticut Department of Corrections Inmate request form submitted by inmate #0276428 from December 5, 2000 to December 12, 2000;

b.      a copy of all answers to the requests described in paragraph 2a, above;

c.       a copy of all grievances filed on the Connecticut Department of Correction’s inmate grievance form by inmate #0276428 from December 5, 2000 to December 12, 2000 which should include a medical emergency request;

d.      a copy of all answers to grievances described in paragraph 2c; and

e.       a copy of all documents generated by the Corrigan Correctional Institution  or the Connecticut Department of Correction regarding the incarceration of the complainant from December 5, 2000 to December 12, 2000.

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated January 4, 2000, the respondents denied the complainant’s request and informed him that in order for the respondents to comply with his request, he must supply an original notarized request.

 

4.      By letter dated January 11, 2001 and filed on January 16, 2001 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request and requiring that his request be notarized.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that the complainant’s request was originally received by Acting Major Bonnie Bruun who sought advice from the respondents regarding the appropriate response to the request. 

 

9.      It is found that Acting Major Bruun was advised that the complainant’s request had to be notarized before she could comply with it.  However, that advice was given based on the incorrect assumption that all of the records the complainant requested were medical records.  

 

10.  It is found that after a series of letters, the distinction between the medical records and the non-medical records requested by the complainant had been made. Therefore, by letter dated January 30, 2001, the respondents informed the complainant that the requested records were compiled for him, but that a release form for the requested medical records had to be completed and notarized before those records could be provided.

 

11.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that the requested records requested are public records and he should not be required to complete and submit a notarized release prior to disclosure. 

 

12.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents claimed that §19a-565, G.S., authorizes their policy of requiring a release form for the medical records to be completed and notarized by the requester before such records are provided.  The respondents also claimed that there is a real threat of identity theft and that the policy affords protection for both the respondents and the subject of the records regarding disclosure of records which the respondents would otherwise withhold pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. 

 

13.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.

 

14.  It is found that the complainant’s request includes records that constitute medical files or similar files within the meaning §1-200(b)(2), G.S.; however, the complainant is the subject of such records and therefore there would be no invasion of his personal privacy if such records were disclosed to him.

 

15.  It is found that §19a-565, G.S., provides nothing with respect to release forms for medical records as that section has been “reserved for future use.”

 

16.  It is found, however, that even without any specific statutory authority, the respondent’s policy requiring a notarized release form for medical records that they would otherwise withhold pursuant to §1-210(b), G.S., is reasonable for the protection of both the agency and the subject of the records.

 

17.  It is found that notarization of the release form is not required when the subject of the records appears at the respondents’ offices in person with proper identification and requests access to inspect or receive copies of his or her own medical records.

 

18.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., by requiring the complainant to complete and notarize a release prior to disclosure of his medical records.

 

19.  Accordingly, the complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents is denied.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

1.      The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 9, 2001.

 

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Gary S. Levine

108 Washington Street, Apt. 201

Norwich, CT 06360-4327

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction; and State

of Connecticut, Department of Correction

c/o Robert Fiske III, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-021/FD/paj/05/14/2001