As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2012-720
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
David Taylor,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2012-720
Director, State of Connecticut, University
of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional
Managed Health Care; and State of
Connecticut, University of Health Center,
Correctional Managed Health Care,
     Respondents
August 14, 2013

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 30, 2013, 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 November 26, 2012, the complainant requested paper copies of his echocardiogram and CT scan images of September 26, 2012.
     3.  It is found that the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s request on November 30, 2012.
     4.  It is found that on December 20, 2012, the respondents informed the complainant that they had gathered the records he requested, consisting of 39 pages.  The respondents asked the complainant to remit the statutory fee.
     5.  By letter of complaint filed December 27, 2012, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with all of the records he requested.
     6.  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.
     7.  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 the provisions of section 1-212.
     8.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
     9.  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.
     10. It is found that the records that the complainant requested are medical records.  It is further found that the complainant did not object to disclosure of such records pursuant to the FOI Act.
     11. The complainant contended that the respondents’ compliance with his request was incomplete, because they offered him only 39 pages of records and he had viewed 81 pages of records at his last health records review.
     12. It is found that the records that the respondents gathered for the complainant in response to his request consist of:  a) two pages of echocardiogram findings; b) 26 pages of echocardiogram images, of which there are five thumbnails and one approximately six inch by six inch image on each page; c) eight pages with 11 thumbnail echocardiogram images per page (totaling 81 thumbnails); and d) three pages of CT scan images, consisting of one large image per page.
     13. It is found that the respondents were prepared to provide the complainant with all the copies of records that he requested.
     14. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged.
     15. The Commission observes, however, that the thumbnail images are almost all illegible due to the size of the image and the quality of the image reproduced on paper and copied.  It is found that the larger images appear to the medically untrained eye to be much more legible.  If the respondents are able to provide larger, more legible copies of the thumbnail images, they should provide such to the complainant, if he agrees to pay any additional statutory fee.
     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 August 14, 2013.
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:
David Taylor #272912
Osborn Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 100
Somers, CT  06071
Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut
Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care; and
State of Connecticut, University of Health Center,
Correctional Managed Health Care
c/o Stephen J. Courtney, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
University of Connecticut Health Center
263 Farmington Avenue
MC-3803
Farmington, CT  06030
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2012-720/FD/cac/8/14//2013