FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Paula Ann
Gosline,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-99
Norwich State
Hospital,
Respondent June 3, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 29, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
matter, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. The
complainant was a patient at the respondent hospital from March 2, 1986 to
March 7, 1986.
3. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 8, 1986, the complainant
alleged that she had been denied access to records relating to her
hospitalization.
4. It
is found that on March 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1986 the complainant requested access to
review and/or copy all records concerning her hospitalization. By letter dated March 11, 1986 the
complainant was informed that the requested records would be available on March
24, 1986. On March 22, 1986 the
complainant received a letter from the respondent stating that her
"Diagnostic and Discharge Note" was available. By letter dated April 17, 1986 the
respondent informed the complainant that all records, not just the discharge
summary, would be available at a charge of $20 to $40 and asked the complainant
to contact the respondent to make arrangements for copying.
5. The
complainant alleged that the respondent denied her prompt access to the
requested records.
Docket #FIC
86-99 Page Two
6. Under
the Freedom of Information Act the public is entitled to access to inspect or
copy public records. It is found that records
relating to the complainant's hospitalization do not relate to the conduct of
the public's business and are therefore not "public records or files"
within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. It
is further found that 17-206i(b), G.S. provides a mechanism for disclosure
of the type of records sought by the complainant. This Commission, however, lacks jurisdiction to enforce whatever
individual right to access the complainant may have pursuant to such statute.
8. It
is concluded that the respondent's responses to the complainant's requests did
not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
9. Based
upon the foregoing conclusion the Commission does not need to address other
claims raised by the respondent at hearing.
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 28, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission