Opinion
No. CV 06 4012219 S
November 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Town of Enfield (the town) appeals from a September 21, 2006 final decision of the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) which ordered the town to disclose to a newspaper reporter the details of an internal affairs investigation of a town police officer. At a hearing before the FOIC, the town claimed that the records were exempt under General Statutes § 1-210(b)(2), "personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."
The FOIC hearing officer agreed to accept the disputed records for an in camera review. After the review, the hearing officer, and subsequently the FOIC itself in its final decision, concluded that the records were not exempt and ordered them fully disclosed. This appeal followed; the court has ordered the records submitted for in camera review to be sealed pending its decision.
As the town has been ordered to disclose the records in this case, aggrievement is found.
The standard of review of the decision of the FOIC to order the release of the investigative records is that of "substantial evidence." As stated by our Supreme Court in Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control, 279 Conn. 584, 597 (2006): "Substantial evidence exists if the administrative record demonstrates a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred . . . With regard to questions of fact, it is neither the function of the trial court nor of this court to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. Judicial review of conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion." Recently, the Supreme Court has also emphasized that the trial court should defer to an agency interpretation that is "both reasonable and long-standing." Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149, 165 (2007).
The Appellate Court has summarized the law regarding the town's claimed exemption to the FOIA as follows: "The Freedom of Information Act makes disclosure of public records the statutory norm . . . The standard that determines whether a claim of exemption qualifies as an invasion of privacy under [§ 1-210(b)(2)] is the test set forth in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission [ 228 Conn. 158, 635 A.2d 783 (1993)] . . . The invasion of personal privacy exception of § 1-210(b)(2) `precludes disclosure . . . only when the information sought by a request does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern and is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 175.' " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) First Selectman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 60 Conn.App. 64 (2000).
The court has reviewed the records under seal under the above-quoted standard and does not disagree with the FOIC conclusions, except in two regards. There is a brief mention of a medical condition in the records that must be redacted. Disclosure of a medical condition may interfere with treatment and affect the subject's career. "[A] medical file of an individual has as one of its principal purposes the furnishing of information for making medical decisions regarding that individual . . ." Almeida v. Freedom of Information Commission, 39 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1995). Medical conditions under treatment touch on intimate details that are not matters of public concern. Young v. Rice, 826 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Ark. 1992); Rural Housing Alliance v. Department of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 77 (D.C. Cir. 1974). There is also a reference to a rumor that should be redacted, as agreed by the parties at the hearing on the merits before the court. Other than these two matters, the court concludes that the records pertain to matters of public concern and are not highly offensive. The FOIC has not acted in abuse of its discretion as regards to these records.
One of the documents in the sealed file is an arrest affidavit that is a public record; it contains many of the details found in the remaining records under seal.
The court has retained the internal affairs record with the modifications discussed above. This modified record with redactions is to remain sealed until the appeal period has passed; assuming that there is no appeal taken from this decision, the order sealing the redacted record shall be vacated. The original unredacted record is to remain sealed until further order of court.
The town and the FOIC may review the court's redactions at the time the decision is filed and in advance of the end of the appeal period.
Except as noted, the appeal is dismissed.