FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 21, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated May 19, 2006, the complainant addressed a request to the respondent for “a copy of the written decision made by Commissioner Andrew P. Denuzze, 6^th District of New Britain, from [sic] May 18^th 1988 and July 27^th 1988 Formal hearing, Re; Sec. 31-313, and all of the copies regarding these two hearings” (the “requested records”).

 

3.  By letter dated June 23, 2006, an agent for the respondent enclosed “copies regarding the above referenced complaint [Jan Krajewski v. State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission- CHRO Case No. 0410475] pertaining to the State of Connecticut’s Workers’ Compensation Commission’s response that you requested”. The letter specifically noted that the enclosures did not include a copy of the Workers’ Compensation Act as amended to January 1, 2003.

 

4.  By letter dated and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“FOIC” or sometimes the “Commission”) on June 26, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide the requested records.

 

5.  Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:

 

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. 

 

…

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. (emphasis added) 

 

6.  It is concluded that the requested records described in paragraph 2, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.  

 

7.  At the hearing, the complainant, who does not speak English, stated through his able interpreter that he believed that more records, including especially an explanatory decision, should exist with reference to the two Workers’ Compensation Commission hearings that were referenced in his request, as set forth at paragraph 2, above. Indeed, part of a reconsideration request from the complainant to the respondent expressly stated: “[the Workers’ Compensation Commission] to this day refuses to provide me with an explanation of its action.”

 

8.  It is found that Mr. Donald E. Newton, Chief of Field Operations for the respondent, spent one and a half to two hours searching for the requested records, as described at paragraph 2, above, in the master case file of Jan Krajewski v. State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission, CHRO Case No. 0410475.

 

9.  It is also found that, on June 23, 2006, Mr. Newton, on behalf of the respondent, furnished the complainant with ninety-one documents, which comprised all records that the respondent maintained or kept on file that the State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission had provided. It is further found that the 232 page Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, is not within the scope of the request for  “all of the copies regarding these two hearings”, as set forth at paragraph 2, above.    

 

10.  It is finally found that on the hearing date, August 21, 2006, the respondent further provided the complainant with 309 pages of records, which constituted all records with reference to Jan Krajewski v. State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission- CHRO Case No. 0410475 that the respondent maintained or kept on file. These 309 pages constituted the respondent’s entire Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities file relating to the complainant, not just the subset of records from that file (which had previously been furnished to the complainant) that the State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission had provided to the respondent.

 

11. Based upon the findings at paragraph 9, above, it is concluded that the respondent furnished the complainant all of the requested records that the respondent maintained or kept on file.     

 

The following orders by the Commission are 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 October 25, 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:

 

Jan Krajewski

78 Osgood Avenue

New Britain, CT 06053

 

Executive Director, State of Connecticut,

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities

c/o Robert J. Brothers, Jr., Esq.

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities

21 Grand Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-314FD/paj/10/31/2006