FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 16, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

 

            On February 25, 2009, the complainant filed a letter with the Commission, requesting to supplement the record by adding an exhibit, pursuant to §1-21j-28, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.  Such proposed exhibit is a printout, apparently from the judicial branch website, of the case detail, listing motions, orders and actions taken in a civil matter captioned David Parian et al v. John Melanson, et al, CV-05-5016005-S.  Such request is hereby denied, since such case detail is not relevant to the issue before the Commission in this matter. 

 

            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.  It is found that, by letter dated July 10, 2008, the complainant requested that the respondents answer several questions and provide him with copies of several records, including a copy of the license number of the hygienist who was working for Drs. Melanson and Picone at Southington Family Dentistry during 2002-2003 (hereinafter “the license number).”

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated July 24, 2008, the respondents informed the complainant that they do not maintain records pertaining to hygienists who work in particular dental offices and as such could not produce the name of the hygienist at issue.  The respondents informed the complainant that, were he to provide the name of the hygienist, the respondents could provide him with the requested license number.

4.  By letter of complaint dated July 28, 2008 and filed July 30, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for a copy of the license number. 

 

5.  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.

 

6.  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. 

 

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 respondents do not maintain or keep on file a record indicating the name of the hygienist who worked for Drs. Melanson and Picone at Southington Family Dentistry during 2002-2003, as described in paragraph 2, above.   

 

9.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint. 

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 10, 2009.

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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 Parian

90 Trumbull Street

Meriden, CT 06451

 

Public Health Services Manager,

State of Connecticut, Department

of Public Health; and State of

Connecticut, Department of

Public Health

C/o Daniel Shapiro, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

55 Elm Street, 5^th Floor

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-495FD/sw/6/16/2009