FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 25, 2002, at which time the complainant 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

1.      The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.   By letter dated June 12, 2002, the complainant made a request to the respondents for a copy of:

 

a.             “all intra/inter office communication and documents from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998 involving the setting of rate charges affecting CHC including any discussions involving setting cost reimbursement at any percentage below 100%;”

 

b.            “any documents or communications used by DSS or its agents or employees, such as Gary Richter or David Parella, in changing the imputed primary health service visits for physicians from 3,500 to 4,200;”

 

c.             “any reports or evaluations generated by the Department of Social Services to justify a reduction in reasonable cost reimbursements;”

 

d.            “any data, analysis or studies done to justify the changing of the criteria from 3,500 to 4,200 annual visits as being "reasonable" of a physician employed by a FQHC;”

 

e.             “all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc., generated by any employee of DSS concerning the need to comply with state or federal law and/or circumventing state or federal law in the modification of reimbursement to FQHCs of reasonable cost or the appropriate number of imputed physician visits;”

 

f.              “all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc., to any federal or state regulator for the period of January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998, relative to rate changes regarding FQHC payment plans including notice of any change affecting payments to FQHCs including payment changes to CHC, Inc.;”

 

g.             “all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc. that were authored by, addressed to, sent to, or of which a copy was provided to any DSS employee and which refer directly or indirectly to the Community Health Center, Inc. whether or not Community Health Center, Inc. is directly referred to or referred to by its proper name or another name;”

 

h.             “all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc. and copies of all contracts, amendments and service agreements relating to Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield's ("Anthem") Participating Provider Group Agreement ("BlueCare Family Plan") for the period of January 1, 1997 through the present date, including copies of all information that Anthem provided to DSS regarding CHC in the context of Anthem's BlueCare Family Plan provider network including all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased” e-mail as electronic communication is never truly_.erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc. that were authored by, addressed to, sent to, or of which a copy was provided to any employee of DSS, Anthem or CHC;”

 

i.               “copies of all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc., in which DSS has ordered or encouraged any managed care company to establish a participating provider agreement between a managed care company and a health care provider and, where a participating provider agreement is in existence and where DSS has resolved or attempted to resolve any dispute between any managed care company and a health care provider, copies of all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc., that were authored by, addressed to, sent to, or of which a copy was provided to any employee of DSS, any managed care company or any health care provider;”

 

j.              “all non-attorney correspondence, written communications, e-mails, (including back-up tapes of "erased" e-mail as electronic communication is never truly erased) faxes, voice-mails, letters, memoranda or notes, etc., that were authored by, addressed to, sent to, or of which a copy was provided to any DSS employee which refer directly or indirectly to the issue of FQHC cost-based reimbursement for the requested time period.  Not included in this request is any correspondence addressed to, and sent to, the Community Health Center, Inc. or any correspondence sent from Community Health Center, Inc. to the Department of Social Services;”

 

k.            “notes and private notes taken by DSS employee David Parella from January 1, 1997 through the present date relating to each and every request set forth in this letter.”

 

3.      By letter dated June 18, 2002, the respondents informed the complainant that the requested records were being compiled and once gathered, they would provide the complainant with all records that were not exempt from disclosure.

 

4.      By letter dated June 24, 2002 and filed on June 27, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with its request.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that on August 23, September 20, November 4, 15, and 22, 2002, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the records responsive to its request maintained by the respondent department, which records totaled just over four hundred pages.

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the subject matter of the requested records should have generated a significant amount of discussion and that there should be records that memorialized those discussions.  The complainant also contended that more records should have been generated than those provided and questioned whether the respondents’ search for the requested records was thorough enough to produce all of the records that exist.

 

10.  It is found that the respondent department’s communication specialist is responsible for ensuring compliance with all FOI requests for records maintained by the respondent department.

 

11.  It is found that said communication specialist received the complainant’s request and issued the June 18, 2002 letter to the complainant.

 

12.  It is found that the communication specialist issued copies of the complainant’s request to various employees of the respondent department that he believed maintained records responsive to the complainant’s request.  The aforementioned employees were instructed to search all of their paper and electronic records for records that would be responsive to the complainant’s request.  Further, such employees forwarded the complainant’s request with the same instruction to other employees who may have had possession of records responsive to the complainant’s request with the same instructions.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent department also enlisted the assistance of their data processing analyst to retrieve any deleted electronic files capable of reconstruction, which included e-mail files, so that a search of those files could be made for records responsive to the complainant’s request.  It is found that such retrieval took between 50 and 60 hours to complete.

 

14.  It is found that not only were key words and phrases used to search through the electronic files but also each electronic file was reviewed individually for records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

15.  It is found that the respondents conducted a diligent and exhaustive search for any and all records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

16.  It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with all records responsive to its request and that no other records exist.

 

17.  It is concluded therefore that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

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

March 12, 2003.

 

 

________________________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

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:

 

Community Health Center, Inc.

c/o Richard R. Brown, Esq.

Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP

100 Pearl Street

Hartford, CT   06103

 

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of

Social Services; and State of Connecticut, Department

of Social Services

c/o Peter L. Brown, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT   06141-0120

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-283/FD/det/03142003