FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
|In the Matter of a Complaint by||FINAL DECISION|
|against||Docket #FIC 1998-083|
|Commissioner, State of
Department of Consumer Protection;
and State of Connecticut, Department
of Consumer Protection,
|Respondents||September 9, 1998|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 12, 1998, 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 §1-18a(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 10, 1998, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with copies of all records associated with inspections of Varnums Pharmacy in New Canaan for the period from January to November, 1997.
3. By letter dated March 16, 1998, the respondents denied the complainants request, citing §20-578, G.S.
4. By letter dated March 26, 1998 and filed with the Commission on March 31, 1998, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by denying him copies of the requested records.
5. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(5), G.S. and 1-19(a), G.S.
6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained by any public agency shall be public records and every person shall have the right to receive a copy of such records .
7. Section 20-578, G.S., in relevant part provides:
[i]nformation received by the Department of Public Health, Department of Consumer Protection or Commission of Pharmacy through filed reports or inspection or as otherwise authorized under chapters 418 and 420b and sections 20-570 to 20-625, inclusive, 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Commissioner of Consumer Protection from disclosing information gained through the inspection of pharmacies and outlets holding permits for the sale of nonlegend drugs if the commissioner considers such disclosure to be in the interest of public health.
8. It is found that the requested records comprise information received by the respondents through filed reports or inspections within the meaning of §20-578, G.S., and that such records do not concern nonlegend drugs. It is further found the request described in paragraph 2, above, was not made in the context of a licensing or right to practice proceeding.
9. It is concluded that §20-578, G.S., mandates that the requested records shall not be disclosed under the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it is further concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-19(a), G.S., by denying the complainant copies of such records.
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 September 9, 1998.
_________________________ Doris V. Luetjen 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:
Jack Trifero 1006 Silvermine Road New Canaan, CT 06840
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection, c/o Garry Desjardins Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman St. - MacKenzie Hall Hartford, CT 06105
__________________________ Doris V. Luetjen Acting Clerk of the Commission