FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 25, 2011, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 

 

            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 on July 23, 2010, the complainant requested “a copy of the document described as a HR-501 in a memo addressed to Mark Frayne dated 4-28-10 from Captain Gerald Hines concerning an evaluation done by Mark Frayne on myself sometime in April.” 

 

3.      By letter of complaint filed August 17, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records he requested. 

 

4.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:

 

“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, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

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 … receive a copy of such records in accordance with of section 1-212.

 

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

 

7.      It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that an HR-501 is a request for mental health services, and that such request was made concerning the complainant by Captain Hines in April 2010.

 

9.      It is found that by letter dated September 21, 2010, the respondents informed the complainant that “there is no HR501 for [April 2010] in your file.”

 

10.   It is found that on February 10, 2011, the respondents provided a copy of a record from Captain Hines’ computer that the respondents describe as a partially completed HR-501, lacking the information to be completed by the mental health examiner, Dr. Frayne.  It is found that the HR-501 included only the information provided by Captain Hines to support his request for services.

 

11.   It is found that on February 17, 2011, the respondents provided a copy of a record that the respondents explained was Dr. Frayne’s response to Captain Hines’ request for mental health services on the HR-501.  It is found that the record provided to the complainant was not a completed HR-501; instead, it was a Supplemental Report to an Incident Report. 

 

12.   The complainant contends that the Supplemental Report is a false document and back-dated, and is not the record completed by Dr. Frayne in April 2010. 

 

13.   It is found, however, that the Supplemental Report was completed by Dr. Frayne after he interviewed the complainant in response to Captain Hines’s request for mental health services on the HR-501. 

 

14.   It is found that the records provided to the complainant on February 10, 2011 and on February 17, 2011, are the records responsive to the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

15.   It is found that the respondents failed to explain the delay of seven months in providing such records to the complainant.  It is found that the respondents failed to provide records promptly to the complainant.

 

16.   Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212, G.S.  

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.      Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 13, 2011.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Robin Elliott #249415

Northern C I

287 Bilton Road

P.O. Box 665

Somers, CT 06071

 

Executive Director, State of Connecticut,

University of Connecticut Health Center,

Correctional Managed Health Care; and

State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut

Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care

C/o Donald R. Green, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

University of CT Health Center, MC-3803

263 Farmington Avenue

Farmington, CT 06030

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2010-508FD/sw/7/14/2011