FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 16, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

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

 

2.      By e-mail dated June 18, 2002, the complainant made a request to Matthew McKeever of the respondent department for:

 

a.       “incident reports for 1999, 2000, and 2001 without names, but including affiliation of affected personnel”;

 

b.      “Camp Harkness operating budget for 1999, 2000, and 2001 as estimated from DMR line items”;

 

c.       “overtime expended by personnel category and by date and activity for 1999, 2000, 2001”;

 

d.      “contracts other than bonded construction regarding activities and maintenance for Camp Harkness”;

 

e.       “bonded construction contract information including bidders and winning bid”;

 

f.        “equipment maintenance contracts”; and

 

g.       “other sources of revenue (non-profits, etc.) earmarked for Camp Harkness uses.”

 

3.            By e-mail dated June 26, 2002 and filed on June 27, 2002 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his entire request.

 

4.            By e-mail dated June 27, 2002, Mr. McKeever responded to the complainant’s request and informed him that all documents responsive to his request were being collected except for the incident reports which are considered client records and exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.

 

5.            By letter dated July 22, 2002, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the records responsive to his request described in paragraphs 2b, 2c, 2e, and 2g, above.  The respondents informed the complainant that the records responsive to his request described in paragraphs 2d, and 2f, above, were still being compiled.

 

 

6.            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. 

 

7.            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 . . . .”

 

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

 

9.            It is found that by letter dated August 21, 2002 the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the records responsive to his request described in paragraph 2d and 2f, above, and therefore the only records at issue in this case are the incident reports described in paragraph 2a, above.

 

10.        At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the incident reports record medical information regarding clients of the respondent department and therefore are medical files or similar files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  The respondents further argued that disclosure would constitute an invasion of such clients’ personal privacy because the records do not pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern and disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.  However, the respondents offered to compile any statistical data from the incident reports that the complainant requested.

 

11.        Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . . .”

 

12.        In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  The claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

 

13.        It is found that the incident reports are “medical” or “similar files” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

14.        It is also found that the incident reports pertain specifically to the clients of the respondent department. 

 

15.        It is also found that because the incident reports contain solely medical information or information that relates to the client’s medical condition, disclosure of the incident reports do not relate to a matter of legitimate public concern and such disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person even if the name of each client were redacted.

 

16.        It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the incident reports would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and consequently it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the incident reports.

 

17.        With respect to the respondents’ offer to compile for the complainant statistical data from the incidents reports, it is found that although the complainant appreciated the respondents’ offer, he declined it because he believed that there are reasons to mistrust any data compiled by the respondents that could not be later verified by inspecting the incident reports and declined to accept the offer.

 

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 January 8, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

David Fairman

300 State Street, Suite 508

New London, CT 06320

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Mental Retardation;

and State of Connecticut, Department

of Mental Retardation

c/o Laurie A. Deane, Esq.

Assistant Director

Legal & Government Affairs

Department of Mental Retardation

460 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-284/FD/paj/1/9/2003