FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Susan Rubinowitz, Joseph F.
Pisani and Greenwich Time,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-188
Greenwich Emergency Medical
Service and Executive Director and Board of Directors, Greenwich Emergency
Medical Service,
Respondents February
24, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on December 15, 1987, at which time the complainants 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. By letter
dated June 18, 1987, the complainants requested the respondents provide them
with copies of:
a. the log book for the Parkway School
ambulance station, describing activity at the station, and
b. the ambulance dispatch record book,
describing all ambulance calls and response times.
2. By letter
dated July 1, 1987, and filed with the Commission on July 2, 1987, the
complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging they received no response to
their request.
3. The
respondents claim they are not public agencies and not subject to the open
records provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The respondents further claim that even if they were public
agencies, the requested records are medical records exempt from disclosure
under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
4. As to whether
the respondent Greenwich Emergency Medical Service ("GEMS") was
created by government, the following facts are found:
a. In 1980 the Greenwich First Selectman's
office commissioned a study and report to help determine the
Docket #87-188 Page
Two
ambulance
needs of the town of Greenwich.
b. At that time, to obtain ambulance transport
a Greenwich resident called either 911, the local police or the local
firehouse, and then either the police or firefighters dispatched an ambulance.
c. In May 1983 the Greenwich First Selectman
appointed a health officer to work through the First Selectman's office to
improve the emergency medical system.
d. In the early 1980s there was much discussion
among town officials as to whether emergency medical services should be
overseen by the First Selectman or the Greenwich Department of Health.
e. The First Selectman elected in 1983 wanted
the Board of Health to initiate any new emergency medical services.
f. In February 1984 the Greenwich Board of
Health sought funding from the Greenwich Board of Estimate and Taxation, as
well as the Representative Town Meeting, to create an emergency medical service
office.
g. In that budget request the Board of Health
proposed a certain medical emergency system which the First Selectman and the
Board of Estimate and Taxation eventually approved and which the town still
uses today.
h. A large part of the initial funding for the
new service came from the Board of Estimate and Taxation and the Representative
Town Meeting, and other initial funding from Greenwich Hospital was conditional
on the town's financial participation.
5. Thus it is
concluded that, although the respondent Greenwich Emergency Medical Service
("GEMS") was chartered as a private non-stock corporation, it was
created by government to a significant extent.
6. As to whether
GEMS is funded by government, the following facts are found:
a. In 1986, when GEMS began operating, the town
of Greenwich provided $108,000 for its initial costs and $245,000 for its
operating expenses.
b. In 1987, the town budgeted $250,000 for
GEMS's operating expenses.
Docket #FIC 87-188 Page
Three
c. For 1988, the Board of Health has proposed
the town provide another $250,000 for GEMS's operating expenses.
d. One of GEMS's three stations, its
headquarters, is located in part of the Parkway School and GEMS pays no rent
for the use of this town-owned property.
e. The town of Greenwich pays $1,750 annually
for membership in the Southwest Emergency Medical Service Council, a regional
organization, from which GEMS directly benefits.
f. The town pays $10,000 annually to fund
C-MED, a VHF medical frequency that provides radio transmission between
ambulances and hospitals, from which GEMS directly benefits.
g. GEMS buys its gas at about half the retail
price through the town fire department for an annual savings of approximately
$12,000 - $15,000.
h. GEMS uses the town's 911 emergency system
and directly benefits from the town's annual funding for that system of
approximately $250,000 - $300,000.
i. GEMS's plan for responding to calls for
emergency medical service assigns the task of being the first to respond to the
Greenwich police, thus making the town police department an integral part of
GEMS's overall operation.
j. Those police officers who have the required
emergency medical training to provide this first response receive extra
compensation of approximately $1,000 a year.
k. The Greenwich fire department spent $2,000
in 1987 for special first-responder equipment kits so that they may back-up the
police in providing first response emergency medical service.
l. The ambulance formerly used by the town
police department was donated to GEMS, along with about $6,000 worth of
equipment.
7. Thus it is
concluded that, although GEMS does not receive all its funds from government
sources, it is funded and subsidized by government to a significant extent.
8. As to whether
GEMS is regulated by government, the following facts are found:
Docket #FIC 87-188 Page
Four
a. The Commission takes administrative notice
of §§19a-175 through 19a-195, G.S.,
which detail the state regulation of emergency medical services, including
licensing, certification, and public hearings; financial requirements and
insurance; requirements for training, equipment and personnel; sanctions for
violations; inspection and registration of ambulances; communications systems;
public education; volunteer personnel and paramedics; and regional councils.
b. GEMS is regulated by these statutes, as well
as further regulations, which the statutes authorize, of the state Department
of Health and its Office of Emergency Medical Services.
c. The municipal government regulates GEMS's
use of its headquarters property, the 911 telephone system, the police and fire
departments as first responders, the municipal gasoline purchasing
arrangements, and the budget processes of the Department of Health, the Board
of Estimates and Taxation, and the Representative Town Meeting.
9. Although the
Commission recognizes that all health care providers, both public and private,
are regulated carefully by the state government, it concludes that the
Greenwich municipal government is involved integrally in GEMS's operations and
that GEMS is regulated by government.
10. As to whether
GEMS performs a governmental function, the following facts are found:
a. GEMS currently performs a service previously
performed by the municipal police and fire departments.
b. The municipal police and fire departments
are still an integral part of that service.
c. Although private companies do provide
emergency medical service, in the town of Greenwich such service traditionally
has been a governmental function; the town considered hiring a private company
and decided not to do so, because the service and its arrangements with the
town were different from what the town desired; and the town chose a system
that includes several town departments.
11. Thus it is
concluded that GEMS performs a governmental function.
12. It is further
concluded that GEMS and the other
Docket #87-188 Page
Five
respondents are public
agencies within the meaning of §1-18a, G.S., and subject to the open meetings
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
13. It is found
that the respondents have not provided the complainants with copies of the
records described in paragraph 1, above.
14. It is found
that GEMS is the custodian of the records described in paragraph 1, above.
15. It is found
that the record described in paragraph 1a, above, the log book, contains
information on the crews' daily activities, such as responding to a call,
putting gas in the ambulance, and leaving at the end of a shift.
16. It is found
that the log book also contains the names and addresses of patients and those
who call GEMS for assistance, as well as brief medical information about
patients.
17. It is found
that disclosing the information described in paragraph 16, above, would invade
the personal privacy of those who are named.
18. It is
concluded that the respondents violated §§ 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not
providing the complainants with copies of the log book, excluding the
information described in paragraph 16, above.
19. It is found
that the record described in paragraph 1b, above, the dispatch book, contains
each patient's name, address, initial and working diagnoses, description of
attitude, possibility of substance abuse, etc.
The dispatch book also tracks the patient through the system, assigns
the billing, and documents the crew's response time.
20. It is found
that disclosing the information described in paragraph 19, above, other than
the crews' response times, would invade the personal privacy of the patients
named.
21. It is found
that the dispatch is an over-sized volume and contains one long line of
information for each patient, making disclosure of only the response times a
time-consuming task.
22. Nonetheless,
it is concluded that the respondents violated §§ 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not
providing the complainants with the recorded response times.
Docket #FIC 87-188 Page
Six
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§ 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S.
2. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainants with a copy of the record
described in paragraph 1a of the findings above. In complying with this paragraph of the order, the respondents
may mask or otherwise delete the information described in paragraph 16 of the
findings above.
3. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainants with a copy of the record
described in paragraph 1b of the findings above. In complying with this paragraph of the order, the respondents
may mask or otherwise delete the information described in paragraph 19 of the
findings above, or devise some other method, so long as at least the response
times are fully disclosed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of February 24, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission