FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Roger J. Harris,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-445
State of Connecticut
Commission on Victim Services,
Respondent October
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on December 15, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondent
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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent
is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that on October 20, 1987, the complainant,
an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, treated the victim of a crime for certain
injuries.
3. It is found that the complainant substantially
assisted the victim in the preparation, typing, notarization and mailing of a claim application for compensation
filed with the respondent on or about October 28, 1987.
4. It is found that on May 3, 1988 the respondent denied
the victim's claim for compensation based on the extent of the victim's
cooperation with law enforcement agencies in their efforts to apprehend and
prosecute the offender.
5. It is found that, beginning on or about May 12, 1988
and continuing through October 28, 1988, the complainant unsuccessfully sought
from the respondent information underlying or explaining the respondent's
denial of the victim's claim.
6. By letter dated October 14, 1988 the complainant
requested of the respondent copies of and access to any records relevant to the
denial of the victim's claim, including:
a. minutes of the respondent's
deliberations;
b. notes made by members of the
respondent;
Docket #FIC 88-445 Page
2
c. the respondent's definition of
"timely filing";
d. the respondent's definition of
"self-serving statements";
e. time logs;
f. telephone conversations and notes;
g. examples of the victim's
non-cooperation with law enforcement officials; and
h. any determination by the respondent's
consultant that the victim's injuries were not consistent with an assault by
persons unknown to the victim.
7. By letter dated October 25, 1988 the respondent
replied to the complainant's request by enclosing copies of those records which
the respondent considered to be public records:
a. the claim application described in
paragraph 3, above;
b. the New London Police Department's
incident report on the victim's assault; and
c. the letter from the respondent to the
victim denying his claim for compensation.
8. By letter of complaint dated November 3, 1988 and
filed with the Commission on November 7, 1988, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that the response described in paragraph 7, above, was not
prompt and did not include any information other than that which the respondent
knew the complainant already to have.
9. At the hearing, the respondent provided the
complainant with copies of the following additional records:
a. "Commission Action -- Initial
Evaluation" dated May 3, 1988 indicating the reason for the denial of the
victim's claim;
b. "Claim Review 5/3/88"
indicating the reason for the denial of the victim's claim, and with names of
other claimants deleted;
c. a letter dated January 28, 1988 from
the respondent's consultant to the victim requesting that the victim contact
the consultant;
d. a letter dated October 30, 1987 from
the respondent to the New London Police Department requesting a copy of the
department's incident report on the victim;
Docket #FIC 88-445 Page
3
e. a telephone message dated March 3, 1988
from the victim to the respondent;
f. four telephone messages from the
complainant to the respondent, one to "John" dated May 12, 1988, one
to "John" dated August 8, 1988, one to "Irene" dated August
8, 1988, and one to "JF" dated October 28, 1988;
g. minutes of the May 3, 1988 meeting of
the respondent, with names of claimants other than the victim deleted;
h. a letter dated October 14, 1988 from
the complainant to state Senator Kenneth Przybysz;
i. a letter dated October 17, 1988 from
Senator Przybysz to the administrator of the respondent;
j. a letter dated November 4, 1988 from
the administrator of the respondent to Senator Przybysz; and
k. the victim's rap sheet printout dated
October 27, 1987, with nolles and dismissals deleted.
10. It is found that the respondent maintains no records
that are responsive to those portions of the complainant's request described in
paragraphs 6.c, 6.d and 6.e above.
11. It is found that the items described in paragraph 9,
above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S., which are
responsive to portions of the complainant's request as described in paragraph
6, above.
12. It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S., by not providing the documents described in paragraph 9,
above, promptly upon request.
13. It is found that the respondent's file on the victim
additionally contains records of:
a. employment information;
b. wage information;
c. medical information;
d. the victim's address; and
e. the victim's participation or
involvement in certain unspecified "personal" activities at the time
of the respondent's investigation of the victim's claim.
Docket #FIC 88-445 Page
4
14. At the hearing, the complainant limited the scope of
his remaining request to the records described in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e,
above.
15. It is found that the records described in paragraphs
13.d and 13.e, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
16. The respondent maintains that the records described
in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e, above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(b)(4), G.S., as records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with
respect to pending claims and litigation to which the public agency is a party
until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise
settled.
17. It is found, however, that the respondent is not a
party to the victim's claim within the meaning of §1-19(b)(4), G.S., but rather
adjudicates that claim.
18. It is concluded therefore that §1-19(b)(4), G.S.,
does not exempt the subject records from disclosure.
19. The respondent also maintains that the subject
records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S., as records
contained in personnel, medical or similar files, the disclosure of which would
constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
20. It is concluded that the subject records are
contained in a similar file within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. The complainant maintains that he needs the victim's
address in order to continue assisting the victim in appealing the respondent's
denial of his claim.
22. It is concluded that, under the circumstances of this
case, there is a legitimate public interest in enabling the complainant to
continue to provide information and assistance to the victim regarding his
right to appeal the respondent's denial of his claim.
23. It is found that the information described in
paragraph 13.e, above, formed a basis for the respondent's denial of the
victim's claim for compensation, which denial was generally based on the extent
of the victim's cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
24. It is concluded that, under the circumstances of this
case, there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of information
connecting the victim's cooperation with law enforcement agencies to the denial
of his claim for compensation, where such information may enable the
complainant to continue to assist the victim.
Docket #FIC 88-445 Page
5
25. The respondent maintains, however, that disclosure of
the information described in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e would invade the victim's
personal privacy.
26. The complainant maintains that by virtue of his
relationship to the victim as treating doctor, disclosure of the information
described in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e would not invade the victim's personal
privacy.
28. It is found that the respondent offered no evidence
to prove that the victim provided his address to the respondent with the
expectation that his address was or would remain confidential with respect to
the complainant.
29. It is also found that an objection by the victim to
the disclosure of the information described in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e, above,
would, under the circumstances of this case, be sufficient to outweigh the
complainant's interest in disclosure.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned
complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with
the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a) regarding the prompt provision of copies
of public records.
2. The respondent shall forthwith write to the victim at
his last known address, inform him of the complainant's request for the records
described in paragraphs 13.d and 13.e, above, inquire whether the victim has
any objection to the disclosure of those records to the complainant, and inform
the victim that the records will be disclosed unless the respondent receives a
written objection within 30 days.
Unless the respondent receives a written objection from the victim
within 45 days of the date of issuance of the final decision in this matter, it
shall then forthwith disclose the subject records to the complainant.
Approved by order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 88-445 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:
ROGER J. HARRIS
159 Ocean Avenue
New London, CT 06320
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
COMMISSION ON VICTIM SERVICES
c/o Peter E. Wiese
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission