FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Anthony E. DeNiro,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-177

 

Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport Mayor; Kathy Testani, Worker's Compensation

Benefits Coordinator; H. James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director;

and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City Attorney

 

                                Respondents                        March 13, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 6, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purpose of hearing, docket #FIC 95-178, Carl Liano v. Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport Mayor, Kathy Testani, Worker's Compensation Benefits Coordinator, H. James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director, and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City Attorney, was consolidated with the above-captioned matter.  The February 8, 1995 letter and list at issue were reviewed in camera following the hearing into 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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter of complaint dated May 17, 1995 and filed with the Commission on May 26, 1995, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents denied him access to copies of the following records:

 

                                a.  the list of persons receiving disability compensation for heart and hypertension either under the Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter "Workers' Compensation Act" or "the Act") or 7-433c, G.S., and not receiving 1099 forms; and

 

                                b.  the February 8, 1995 letter from respondent Testani to Frank Lipsitz of Total Employee Care, Inc.; and

 

                                c.  all attachments to the letter, described in b., above.

 

Docket #FIC 95-177                                             Page 2

 

                3.  It is found that by letter dated February 8, 1995 respondent Testani informed Total Employee Care, Inc., that:

 

                                Attached is the list of employees that you provided for verification of injury type.  The highlighted employees have Workers' Compensation claims and should not be taxed: therefore, should not receive a 1099 form.

 

                4.  The February 8, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 3, above, named certain employees who should not receive a 1099 form.  In addition, the letter noted that "All the other employees on the list should receive a 1099 form, this also includes Mr. A. DeNiro."

 

                5.  It is found that since February 1995 the complainant has made requests, at first to respondent Testani and later to respondent Haselkamp, seeking access to the February 8, 1995 letter and the attached list of employees, described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above (hereinafter "February letter" and "list").

 

                6.  It is found that by letter dated March 9, 1995, the complainant requested that respondent Testani provide him with "any and all material and correspondence and decisions" regarding his Workers' Compensation case and its taxability including the February letter.  The complainant also requested a letter written by the respondent City Attorney and memoranda and attachments.

 

                7.  It is found that by letters dated May 8, 1995 the complainant made another request to respondents Testani and Haselkamp for an "unaltered" copy of the February letter.

 

                8.  It is found that by letter dated May 10, 1995, respondent Haselkamp forwarded the complainant's March 9 and May 8, 1995 requests to the City Attorney's office for a legal opinion.

 

                9.  It is found that by letter dated June 12, 1995 respondent Haselkamp sent notice to the employees named in the February letter, informing them that an FOI request for "attachments containing your name and the amount of 1099 income associated with your heart and hypertension claim" was made.  The June 12, 1995 letter requested a response as to whether they objected to the disclosure of the information.  Haselkamp also informed the complainant, by letter dated June 12, 1995 of the notice sent to the employees.

 

                10.  It is found that by letter dated June 19, 1995 respondent Haselkamp provided the complainant with a redacted copy of a letter dated February 16, 1995 which letter is similar to the February letter, described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, with the exception of the date.

 

Docket #FIC 95-177                                             Page 3

 

                11.  It is found that by letter dated July 12, 1995 respondent Haselkamp sent notice to all the employees named in the February letter and on the list, described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, indicating that an FOI request for "attachments containing your name and the amount of 1099 income associated with your heart and hypertension claim" was made.  The July 12, 1995 letter requested a response as to whether they objected to the disclosure of the information.  Haselkamp also informed the complainant, by letter dated July 10, 1995 that he planned to send the July 12, 1995 notice because he was concerned about the privacy interests of the employees.

 

                12.  It is found that by letter dated July 24, 1995 respondent Haselkamp provided the complainant with a redacted copy of the February letter and list, redactions having been made with respect to the names of persons who objected to disclosure.

 

                13.  It is found that by letter dated August 3, 1995 the complainant informed the respondent that he objected to the disclosure of his name in the February letter and on the list, and indicated that he had not been notified of his right to object to disclosure when others had been.  He again renewed his request for an unredacted copy of the list.

 

                14.  It is also found that in the August 3, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 13, above, the complainant indicated that he was not seeking any medical information about the employees, nor the amount of benefit received, nor their taxes and social security numbers.  He indicated he is seeking only the names of the employees on the list and named in the February letter.

 

                15.  The respondents contend that disclosure of the February letter and list would be an invasion of the employees' personal privacy.  They also contend that disclosure would divulge medical condition or disease and confidential tax information exempt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12112 and 26 U.S.C. 6103, respectively.

 

                16.  It is found that the respondent received objections to disclosure from some employees following their receipt of the notices described in paragraphs 9 and 11, above.

 

                17.  It is found that the February letter and list are maintained by respondents Testani and Haselkamp and not the respondents Mayor and City Attorney.

 

                18.  It is found that the February letter and list are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                19.  It is found that the list contains the names of employees receiving Workers' Compensation and 7-433c, G.S. disability benefits and the amount received.  It is found that the February letter indicates that certain employees on the list should not receive a 1099 form.

 

Docket #FIC 95-177                                             Page 4

 

                20.  Section 7-433c, G.S., requires municipal employers to pay benefits to policemen and firemen disabled or who have died as a result of hypertension or heart disease.

 

                21.  It is found that neither the February letter nor the list contain information which is exempt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12112, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                22.  It is found that the complainant is not seeking any information concerning the medical condition of the employees receiving Workers' Compensation and 7-433c, G.S., benefits, nor is he seeking the amount of benefit or any confidential tax information.

 

                23.  Further, it is found that the names of employees contained in the February letter and on the list do not constitute a medical file, which if disclosed, would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                24  However, even if the names in the February letter and contained on the list, described in paragraph 24, above, were to be considered a medical file, G.S., disclosure of such names would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

                25.  Further it is found that the names of employees receiving Workers' Compensation and 7-433c, G.S, benefits from the city of Bridgeport pertain to matters of legitimate public concern.

 

                26.  It is therefore concluded that the February 8, 1995 letter and list are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12112, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                27.  It is further concluded that 1-19(a), G.S., requires that the respondents provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the February letter and the attached list of persons receiving Worker's Compensation and 7-433c, G.S. benefits.

 

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

 

                1.  The respondent Haselkamp shall within seven days of the receipt of the notice of the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the February 8, 1995 letter and the list of persons receiving Worker's Compensation and 7-433c, G.S. benefits.  The respondent may redact from the list the amount of benefit being received by each recipient prior to disclosure to the complainant in light of the complainant's modified request, as described in paragraph 14 of the findings, above.

 

Docket #FIC 95-177                                             Page 5

 

                2.  The complaint is dismissed as against the Mayor and City Attorney.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 13, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-177                                             Page 6

 

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:

Anthony E. DeNiro

c/o Carl J. Liano

29 Centerview Drive

Shelton, CT 06484

 

Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport Mayor: Kathy Testani, Workers'Compensation Benefits Coordinator; J. James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director; and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City Attorney

c/o John Barton, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission