The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 26 of 42
-
We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
-
This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions: 1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat.
-
We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute. Section 10 of this Act provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
-
In a letter dated July 21, 1994 you wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion concerning the status of the Mobil Oil Corporation pursuant to a cost reimbursement request to the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-up Fund Review Board ("Review Board").
-
You have requested our advice on several questions relating to the liability of the Second Injury Fund for payment of workers' compensation claims when an insurer of such claims has been determined to be insolvent. The Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association have asserted differing interpretations of the statutes governing such liability.
-
The following is in response to your request of June 30, 1994, for an opinion concerning the applicability of the gun certification requirements of 1993 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-306, An Act Concerning Assault Weapons, to licensed firearms dealers and distributors. Specifically you ask: "Do licensed firearms dealers and distributors need to obtain a certificate of possession for all assault weapons in their possession that were 'in stock' as of October 1, 1993? Is a certificate needed with respect to assault weapons acquired after October 1, 1993?" The Act addresses "licensed gun dealers" and we assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that your questions concern these entities.
-
In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
-
In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III,
-
This letter is in response to your request for our opinion as to whether a pharmacy engages in fee-splitting, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-175(7), if physicians who own stock in the pharmacy receive certain benefits from their stock ownership.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes. http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
You have sought our advice regarding the issue of whether a hospital which has been licensed as a chronic disease hospital may be issued a second chronic disease hospital license for a discrete portion of its premises which it intends to operate as a rehabilitation unit.
-
Prior to the merger of the Department of Health Services and the former Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (CADAC), the Executive Director of CADAC, Dr. John Higgins-Biddle, requested a formal opinion from this Office regarding the impact of the federal regulations concerning confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, or any other pertinent state or federal law or regulation related to patient confidentiality, on a new data system that CADAC was having designed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. After the merger of CADAC into the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS),1 you informed us that your Department is continuing with the development of the proposed data system, that the merger has not affected either the scope or nature of Dr. Higgins-Biddle's previous opinion request, and that you still need advice regarding the questions that he originally posed
-
In your letter of May 12, 1994, you ask about the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-44a(j) (non-disclosure of information)1 to evidence introduced at a "hearing" conducted by the Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) as required by 51-44a(e) (procedure for reappointment of judge to same court).
-
This is in response to an October 19, 1993 request for an opinion regarding the prescriptive authority of advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), which request was generated by Marie Hilliard, the Board's Executive Officer. The question is whether APRNs have prescriptive authority in a private practice setting.