FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Linda S. Walsh,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2008-298

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Health; and

State of Connecticut, Department

of Public Health,

 
  Respondents September 10, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 4, 2008, 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.       It is found that, by letter dated March 27, 2008, the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with copies of investigative reports related to petitions that the complainant had filed with the respondent department against two physicians.

3.      It is found that, by letter dated April 4, 2008, the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s request for records, but claimed that the records were exempt from disclosure.  

4.      By letter dated April 25, 2008 and filed April 29, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”) by denying her access to public records.

 

5.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

Except 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

7.      Section 1-212(a)(1), 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.”

8.      It is found that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph 2, above, and it is therefore concluded that such records are “public records” and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.

9.      The respondents claim that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §§20-13d and 20-13e, G.S. 

10.  Section 20-13d, G.S., provides that a state or county medical society, the Medical Examining Board or any individual may file a petition with the respondent department alleging information that appears to show that a physician is or may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skills or safety.

11.  Section 20-13e, G.S., provides that the respondent department must investigate each petition filed under §20-13d, G.S., to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a statement of charges.  Section 20-13e (a), G.S., further provides that “[i]f at any time subsequent to the filing of a petition and during the eighteen-month period [thereafter], the department makes a finding of no probable cause, the petition and the entire record of such investigation shall remain confidential unless the physician requests that such petition and record be open.” 

12.  It is found that the respondent department terminated its investigation of the physicians, finding that there was no probable cause to substantiate the charges in the petitions.  It is further found that there is no indication that either of the physicians requested that the respondent department release their investigative records. 

13.  Consequently, it is concluded that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §20-13e (a), G.S.

14.  Accordingly, it is concluded 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 dismissed. 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting 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:

 

Linda S. Walsh

307 White Birch Drive

Waterbury, CT 06708

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Health; and

State of Connecticut, Department

of Public Health

c/o Tanya Feliciano DeMattia, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-298FD/paj/9/17/2008