In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Sharon Novak,




against Docket #FIC 87-336


Deputy Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection,


Respondent May 25, 1988


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 28, 1987, 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:


1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. By letter dated August 24, 1987, the complainant filed a complaint with the drug control division of the department of consumer protection against a pharmacy and two pharmacists employed by it.


3. By letter dated October 22, 1987, the complainant's attorney requested access to the record of investigation of the complaint.


4. By letter of complaint to the Commission dated November 18, 1987, the attorney for the complainant alleged that the respondent denied the complainant copies of the record of the investigation of the complaint.


5. The respondent claimed the record was exempt from disclosure under 21a-306, G.S.


Docket #FIC 87-336 page two


6. 1-19a 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...shall be public records and every person shall have the receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.


7. 21a-306 provides that

Information received by the department of health services, state department of consumer protection or commission of pharmacy through filed reports, inspection or as otherwise authorized under chapters 382 and 418 and this chapter shall not be disclosed publicly in such a manner as to identify individuals or institutions, except in a proceeding involving the question of licensure or right to practice.


8. It is found that Chapters 418 and 382 of the Connecticut General Statutes authorize investigation of the complainant's complaint by the department of consumer protection.


9. It is found that disclosure of the record of the investigation would identify individuals and institutions.


10. It is further found that only after an investigation is completed, does the respondent initiate any proceeding involving the question of licensure or right to practice.


11. It is concluded that the records of the investigation are exempt under 21a-306.


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 special meeting of May 25, 1988.



Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission