FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Allan Bruce Hemmings,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-166
Whiting Forensic Institute,
State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health,
Respondent April 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 14, 1995, 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 1-18a(a), G.S., and a
mental health facility as set forth in 17a-560, G.S., et seq.
2. It
is found that by letter dated April 24, 1995 the complainant requested two sets
of "unedited, uncensored copies of his Whiting [m]edical [r]ecords"
("medical records").
3. It
is found that on or about May 11, 1995, the respondent provided the complainant
with redacted copies of his medical records.
4. By
letter of complaint dated May 17, 1995, and filed May 22, 1995, the complainant
appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent failed to comply with
his medical records request.
5. At
the hearing on this matter the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Docket #FIC 95-166 Page
2
6. Specifically,
the respondent argues that 17a-548(b) and 52-146d, G.S., et seq.,
control disclosure of the requested records rather than Connecticut's Freedom
of Information Act.
7. It
is found that the requested records consist of communications relating to the
diagnosis and treatment of the complainant's mental condition by his treating
physicians and clinicians.
8. Unless
a request to inspect or receive copies of a patient's hospital records is made
in connection with litigation related to hospitalization, 17a-548(b),
G.S., permits the respondent to refuse to disclose to the complainant those
portions of his medical record which would be: medically harmful to him;
constitute an invasion of another person's privacy; or violates assurances of
confidentiality given to a third party.
9. The
complainant argues that the respondent's physicians, clinicians and other
personnel are parties to a federal lawsuit involving him.
10. The
complainant alleges that the existence of the federal lawsuit caused the
respondent's physicians, clinicians and other personnel to be biased and
self-serving in their determinations to only provide him with redacted copies
of his medical records.
11. It
is found that the complainant did not allege or prove that the existing federal
lawsuit referred to in paragraph 9, above, is related to his hospitalization,
or that his request for the medical records was made in connection with any
litigation related to his hospitalization.
12. Therefore,
it is concluded that 17a-548(b), G.S., controls disclosure of the subject
medical records and regrettably the Commission lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over his 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 hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-166 Page
3
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:
Allan Bruce Hemmings
P.O. Box 70
Middletown, CT 06457
Whiting Forensic Institute,
State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health
c/o Stephen Vitelli, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission