FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 12, 2005, at which time the complainant 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed February 28, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his February 2, 2005 request to inspect and copy public records.

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated February 4, 2005,  the complainant requested an appointment from the respondent to review, and copy, as necessary, his “entire file at Workers’ Compensation in New Britain.”

 

4.  It is found that the respondent then contacted the complainant and made arrangements for the complainant to review his file on February 10, 2005.

 

5.  It is found that, when the complainant visited the respondent’s New Britain office on February 10, 2005, he was shown most of his file, but what he was shown did not include the notes of the respondent’s commissioners who had heard his case on various occasions, at both informal and formal hearings.

 

6.  It is also found that a member of the respondent’s staff sat with the complainant while he reviewed the records.

 

7.  It is found that, as the complainant’s Workers Compensation case was heard by different commissioners, the notes of the previous commissioner or commissioners were transferred, along with the rest of the file, to the commissioner who was currently hearing the case.

 

8.   It is also found that the respondent’s practice is to maintain a claimant’s file in a single office.

 

9.  It is found that the notes are handwritten and consist of recommendations, medical issues, the impressions of the commissioner, and so forth.

 

10.  It is found that the notes are kept in the same file folder as the remainder of a claimant’s file, but are separated because the respondent does not consider them part of the claimant’s file.

 

11.  It is found that, when the complainant observed that there was a part of the file that he had not been given to review, he requested it during his February 10, 2005 visit.

 

12.  It is found that the respondent denied the complainant’s request to review the commissioners’ notes contained in his file at the time of his request.

 

13.  It is also found that the respondent ultimately provided the commissioners’ notes to the complainant after the filing of this complaint.

 

14.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

Except 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….   

 

16.  It is concluded that the commissioners’ notes are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

17. The respondent contends that it did not interpret the complainant’s original February 4, 2005 request as one to view the commissioners’ notes.

 

18.  It is found, however, that the complainant’s original request was for ‘his entire file,” and that his Workers Compensation file physically contained the commissioners’ notes. 

 

19.  It is also found that the commissioners’ notes were not merely used by individual commissioners to refresh their memories, but were used by subsequent commissioners as part of the respondent’s decision-making process.

 

20.  It is additionally found that the complainant specifically requested the commissioners’ notes at his February 10, 2005 visit to the respondent’s New Britain offices.

 

21.  It is concluded that both the complainant’s original request, and his February 10, 2005 request, included the commissioners’ notes.

 

22.  It is also concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by not promptly providing the complainant with access to inspect the commissioners’ notes.

 

23.  It is also concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by having a staff person sit with the complainant while he reviewed his file.

 

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements contained in §1-210(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 8, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Emil Sorban

75 Hurlbut Street, Apt. 11-A

Winsted, CT 06098

 

State of Connecticut,

Workers Compensation Commission

c/o Laurie Adler, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-091FD/paj/2/15/2006