Freedom of Information Officer, Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission
122 A.3d 1217
Conn.2015Background
- Records sought by author Ron Robillard from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services concerning Amy Archer Gilligan, a convicted murderer confined for ~38 years at Connecticut State Hospital.
- Commission ordered release of many records; the department claimed exemptions under (1) the psychiatrist-patient privilege (Gen. Stat. § 52-146e) and (2) the FOI Act personal privacy exemption (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(b)(2)).
- The court reviewed records in camera and categorized them into: plainly psychiatric (privileged), plainly nonpsychiatric (not privileged), and medical/dental records of ambiguous relation to psychiatric care.
- The concurrence (McDonald, J., joined by Palmer, J.) agrees some records are privileged and some are not, but rejects the majority’s categorical rule treating all inpatient medical/dental records as per se psychiatric.
- The concurrence holds personal privacy exemption does not apply: Gilligan is deceased (died 1962), there are no known surviving family members asserting privacy, and public interest in her case remains legitimate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychiatrist-patient privilege shields requested records | Robillard: records should be disclosed under FOI; privilege narrowly construed | Department: privilege protects all records created at inpatient psychiatric facility, including medical/dental records | Concurrence: privilege applies only to communications/records relating to diagnosis or treatment of mental condition; some records privileged, some not; remand for medical/dental records to determine relation to psychiatric care |
| Whether location of record (inpatient facility) makes it per se psychiatric | Robillard: location alone insufficient; content/evidence required | Department: all inpatient records are privileged as a matter of law | Concurrence: rejects per se rule; requires document content or extrinsic evidence linking care to psychiatric treatment |
| Whether identifying a person as a psychiatric patient is always protected | Robillard: identification may be public where patient status already public | Department: any record identifying patient is prohibited from release under § 52-146e | Concurrence: protection applies only to records that meet statutory definition of communications/records relating to psychiatric care; public knowledge of Gilligan’s commitment undercuts Falco rationale here |
| Whether FOI Act personal privacy exemption protects these records | Robillard: public interest in historical treatment outweighs privacy; decedent status negates exemption | Department: disclosure would invade personal privacy of patient and family | Concurrence: exemption inapplicable — decedent rule and lack of surviving family; Perkins two-part test favors disclosure given legitimate public interest and diminished privacy offensiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission, 181 Conn. 324 (establishes FOI Act policy favoring disclosure)
- Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (adopts Restatement standard and two-part test for personal privacy exemption)
- State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (limits psychiatric privilege to communications relating to diagnosis/treatment and between covered parties)
- Bieluch v. Bieluch, 190 Conn. 813 (statutory psychiatric privilege narrowly applied)
- Falco v. Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321 (protection of patient identity where identity itself is confidential)
- Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission, 300 Conn. 511 (in camera review can establish privilege on face of documents)
- State v. Jenkins, 73 Conn. App. 150 (extrinsic testimony may show that otherwise medical/administrative records relate to psychiatric treatment)