FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Albert C. Victoria II, M.D.

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 87-61

 

Director of Residency Training of Norwich State Hospital & Norwich State Hospital

 

Respondents May 27, 1987

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 13, 1987, 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:

 

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter of complaint filed March 6, 1987, the complainant alleged the respondents failed to comply with his request for copies of records concerning himself.

 

3. On February 7, 1987, the complainant wrote to the respondents requesting the contents of files concerning him and also asking "who or what departments, etc., at the hospital or elsewhere in the State, in addition to you, has files concerning me."

 

4. It is found that since the complaint was filed the respondents have made serious efforts through its Office of Human Resources to provide the complainant with copies of all records about him which the respondents have.

 

5. On April 9, 1987, the complainant was advised that copies of these records would cost $110.50 and that advance payment was required.

 

6. In so informing the complainant, the respondents denied the complainant's request that the records be provided free because of the complainant's alleged indigency.

 

Docket # FIC 87-61 page two

 

7. At hearing the complainant contested the refusal of the respondents to provide the records to him free of charge.

 

8. It is found that the determination whether a person is indigent is for the agency which has received a request for records to make.

 

9. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents are not required to provide the records sought by the complainant free of charge simply because the complainant alleges he is indigent.

 

10. The complainant alleges further that the respondents have failed to inform him what other agencies maintain files concerning him and that they have failed to gather these other records.

 

11. It is found that 1-15 et seq., G.S. do not require the respondents to search for records concerning the complainant which are not within their custody.

 

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 May 27, 1987.

 

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission