FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Albert C.
Victoria II, M.D.
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 87-61
Director of
Residency Training of Norwich State Hospital & Norwich State Hospital
Respondents May 27, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 13, 1987, 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:
1. The respondents are public agencies
within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed March 6,
1987, the complainant alleged the respondents failed to comply with his request
for copies of records concerning himself.
3. On February 7, 1987, the complainant
wrote to the respondents requesting the contents of files concerning him and
also asking "who or what departments, etc., at the hospital or elsewhere
in the State, in addition to you, has files concerning me."
4. It is found that since the complaint
was filed the respondents have made serious efforts through its Office of Human
Resources to provide the complainant with copies of all records about him which
the respondents have.
5. On April 9, 1987, the complainant was
advised that copies of these records would cost $110.50 and that advance
payment was required.
6. In so informing the complainant, the
respondents denied the complainant's request that the records be provided free
because of the complainant's alleged indigency.
Docket # FIC
87-61 page two
7. At hearing the complainant contested
the refusal of the respondents to provide the records to him free of charge.
8. It is found that the determination
whether a person is indigent is for the agency which has received a request for
records to make.
9. It is concluded, therefore, that the
respondents are not required to provide the records sought by the complainant
free of charge simply because the complainant alleges he is indigent.
10. The complainant alleges further that the
respondents have failed to inform him what other agencies maintain files
concerning him and that they have failed to gather these other records.
11. It is found that 1-15 et seq.,
G.S. do not require the respondents to search for records concerning the
complainant which are not within their custody.
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 27, 1987.
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk
of the Commission