Peters, C. J.
The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether autopsy reports compiled by the office of Connecticut’s chief medical examiner are public records subject to public inspection under General Statutes § 1-19 (a),1 the mainstay provision of the Freedom of Information Act. The plaintiff, Dr. Catherine A. Galvin, [450] was the state’s chief medical examiner at all times relevant to this appeal. She refused to furnish a copy of an autopsy report requested by the defendant David W. Schoolcraft, a reporter for the defendant Norwich Bulletin Company. The defendants complained to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). After a hearing, the FOIC ordered Dr. Galvin to furnish the defendants with a copy of the autopsy report. She appealed the decision to the Superior Court, Purtill, J., which sustained her appeal. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which set aside the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal. After petitioning for certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The underlying facts are undisputed. On October 13, 1981, a sixteen year old Norwich boy, Dwayne Dodd, was shot and killed in the course of a struggle with a Norwich police officer. Pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-406 (then § 19-530),2 the medical examiner’s office performed an autopsy on Dodd’s body. On October 21, 1981, at the office of the chief medical examiner in Farmington, the defendant Schoolcraft orally requested Dr. Galvin to furnish him with a copy of the autopsy report. The plaintiff refused to do so. She indicated, however, that Schoolcraft could obtain a copy [451] of the report upon the completion of a pending investigation by the office of the state’s attorney, provided that he obtained the Dodd family’s consent to disclosure of the report. Neither Schoolcraft nor the defendant Norwich Bulletin Company (Bulletin) ever sought or obtained such consent.
Shortly after the meeting with Dr. Galvin, School-craft and the Bulletin filed a complaint with the FOIC, seeking to compel disclosure of the autopsy report. The FOIC received the complaint on November 2, 1981. After a hearing on February 18, 1982, the FOIC rendered a decision ordering the plaintiff to disclose the report. On January 12, 1984, the Superior Court sustained the plaintiff’s appeal of the FOIC’s decision. The Appellate Court found error and ordered dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal in Galvin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 4 Conn. App. 468, 495 A.2d 1089 (1985).
On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court erred in holding that: (1) state administrative regulations that limit public access to autopsy reports,3 enacted pursuant to General Statutes [452] § 19a-411,4 are invalid under General Statutes § 1-19 (a); and (2) General Statutes § 1-19 (b) (2), which exempts from disclosure under § 1-19 “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy,” did not apply to [453] the autopsy report in question. Because we agree with the plaintiffs first claim of error, we need not resolve her second claim.5
I
Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we must resolve an important threshold question of jurisdiction. The FOIC’s schedule for hearing and rendering decision in this case exceeded the time limitations imposed by General Statutes § 1-2 li (b). See Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 201 Conn. 421, 518 A.2d 49 (1986). We have previously held that the [454] § l-21i (b) time constraints are mandatory, and that the FOIC’s failure to adhere to them invalidates its subsequent action. Board of Police Commissioners v. Freedom of Information Commission, 199 Conn. 451, 452-53, 507 A.2d 1385 (1986); Zoning Board of Appeals v. Freedom of Information Commission, 198 Conn. 498, 503-506, 503 A.2d 1161 (1986). After these decisions were rendered, the General Assembly enacted Public Acts 1986, No. 86-408, which, in § 2 (a), retrospectively validated FOIC actions not in compliance with § l-21i (b). In Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, we held that this retrospective validation is a legitimate exercise of legislative authority. We therefore hold that Public Acts 1986, No. 86-408, § 2 (a), preserved the FOIC’s jurisdiction to act in this case.
II
The resolution of the plaintiff’s dispositive claim requires the reconciliation of the provisions of two statutes, each of which deals with the public’s right of access to records kept on file by public agencies. General Statutes § 19a-411 sets forth specific guidelines for the preparation, maintenance and disclosure of autopsy reports and other records of investigations conducted by the medical examiner’s office. These statutory guidelines, and the administrative regulations which they expressly authorize, impose stricter limitations on the disclosure of such records than the Freedom of Information Act, General Statutes § 1-19, permits. By contrast, under § 1-19 (a), “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute,” all records of public agencies are public records subject to public inspection.
The plaintiff claims that § 19a-411 gives the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, which supervises the medical examiner’s office, authority to promulgate [455] restrictive regulations concerning the disclosure of autopsy reports. Thus, the plaintiff argues, § 19a-411 is a state statute coming within the “[ejxcept as otherwise provided” exception to § 1-19, with the result that autopsy reports fall outside the ambit of public records.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peters, C. J.
The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether autopsy reports compiled by the office of Connecticut’s chief medical examiner are public records subject to public inspection under General Statutes § 1-19 (a),1 the mainstay provision of the Freedom of Information Act. The plaintiff, Dr. Catherine A. Galvin, [450] was the state’s chief medical examiner at all times relevant to this appeal. She refused to furnish a copy of an autopsy report requested by the defendant David W. Schoolcraft, a reporter for the defendant Norwich Bulletin Company. The defendants complained to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). After a hearing, the FOIC ordered Dr. Galvin to furnish the defendants with a copy of the autopsy report. She appealed the decision to the Superior Court, Purtill, J., which sustained her appeal. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which set aside the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal. After petitioning for certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The underlying facts are undisputed. On October 13, 1981, a sixteen year old Norwich boy, Dwayne Dodd, was shot and killed in the course of a struggle with a Norwich police officer. Pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-406 (then § 19-530),2 the medical examiner’s office performed an autopsy on Dodd’s body. On October 21, 1981, at the office of the chief medical examiner in Farmington, the defendant Schoolcraft orally requested Dr. Galvin to furnish him with a copy of the autopsy report. The plaintiff refused to do so. She indicated, however, that Schoolcraft could obtain a copy [451] of the report upon the completion of a pending investigation by the office of the state’s attorney, provided that he obtained the Dodd family’s consent to disclosure of the report. Neither Schoolcraft nor the defendant Norwich Bulletin Company (Bulletin) ever sought or obtained such consent.
Shortly after the meeting with Dr. Galvin, School-craft and the Bulletin filed a complaint with the FOIC, seeking to compel disclosure of the autopsy report. The FOIC received the complaint on November 2, 1981. After a hearing on February 18, 1982, the FOIC rendered a decision ordering the plaintiff to disclose the report. On January 12, 1984, the Superior Court sustained the plaintiff’s appeal of the FOIC’s decision. The Appellate Court found error and ordered dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal in Galvin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 4 Conn. App. 468, 495 A.2d 1089 (1985).
On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court erred in holding that: (1) state administrative regulations that limit public access to autopsy reports,3 enacted pursuant to General Statutes [452] § 19a-411,4 are invalid under General Statutes § 1-19 (a); and (2) General Statutes § 1-19 (b) (2), which exempts from disclosure under § 1-19 “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy,” did not apply to [453] the autopsy report in question. Because we agree with the plaintiffs first claim of error, we need not resolve her second claim.5
I
Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we must resolve an important threshold question of jurisdiction. The FOIC’s schedule for hearing and rendering decision in this case exceeded the time limitations imposed by General Statutes § 1-2 li (b). See Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 201 Conn. 421, 518 A.2d 49 (1986). We have previously held that the [454] § l-21i (b) time constraints are mandatory, and that the FOIC’s failure to adhere to them invalidates its subsequent action. Board of Police Commissioners v. Freedom of Information Commission, 199 Conn. 451, 452-53, 507 A.2d 1385 (1986); Zoning Board of Appeals v. Freedom of Information Commission, 198 Conn. 498, 503-506, 503 A.2d 1161 (1986). After these decisions were rendered, the General Assembly enacted Public Acts 1986, No. 86-408, which, in § 2 (a), retrospectively validated FOIC actions not in compliance with § l-21i (b). In Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, we held that this retrospective validation is a legitimate exercise of legislative authority. We therefore hold that Public Acts 1986, No. 86-408, § 2 (a), preserved the FOIC’s jurisdiction to act in this case.
II
The resolution of the plaintiff’s dispositive claim requires the reconciliation of the provisions of two statutes, each of which deals with the public’s right of access to records kept on file by public agencies. General Statutes § 19a-411 sets forth specific guidelines for the preparation, maintenance and disclosure of autopsy reports and other records of investigations conducted by the medical examiner’s office. These statutory guidelines, and the administrative regulations which they expressly authorize, impose stricter limitations on the disclosure of such records than the Freedom of Information Act, General Statutes § 1-19, permits. By contrast, under § 1-19 (a), “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute,” all records of public agencies are public records subject to public inspection.
The plaintiff claims that § 19a-411 gives the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, which supervises the medical examiner’s office, authority to promulgate [455] restrictive regulations concerning the disclosure of autopsy reports. Thus, the plaintiff argues, § 19a-411 is a state statute coming within the “[ejxcept as otherwise provided” exception to § 1-19, with the result that autopsy reports fall outside the ambit of public records.
The defendants claim that § 19a-411 does not exclude autopsy reports from the coverage of the Freedom of Information Act. They argue that, read as a whole and in conjunction with § 1-19, § 19a-411 incorporates the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and permits only such regulations on disclosure as do not conflict with the act. The defendants maintain that § 1-19 (a), as amended by Public Acts 1975, No. 75-342, and Public Acts 1984, No. 84-112,6 invalidates administrative regulations, such as those of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, that conflict with § 1-19.7 The Appellate Court relied on this provision of § 1-19 (a) to hold that § 1-19, as amended, superseded the commission’s regulations limiting public access to autopsy reports. Galvin v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 479.
[456] In our view, the disposition of this case turns on whether the authority to restrict disclosure of autopsy reports stems solely from the regulations of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, or whether such authority is expressly derived from § 19a-411.8 In the former case, the restrictions would be void under the provision of § 1-19 (a) that invalidates regulations inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Act. In the latter case, the restrictions would be valid under the provision of § 1-19 (a) that permits other statutes to exclude statutorily defined records from the category of public records to which the Freedom of Information Act applies. We are persuaded that autopsy reports fall within the latter category and that restrictions on their disclosure are therefore valid.
General Statutes § 19a-411 is not a model of the draftsman’s art. We must rely on the tools of statutory construction to resolve its ambiguous and facially inconsistent provisions. It is an accepted principle of statutory construction that, if possible, the component parts of a statute should be construed harmoniously in order to render an overall reasonable interpretation. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 200 Conn. 630, 637, 513 A.2d 52 (1986); Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53, 63, 491 A.2d 1043 (1985). Where statutes contain specific and general references covering the same subject matter, the specific references prevail over the general. Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 622, 363 A.2d 1038 (1975); Meriden v. Board of Tax Review, 161 Conn. 396, 402, 288 A.2d 435 (1971).
[457] With these principles in mind, we turn to the construction of § 19a-411. The guidelines set forth in § 19a-411 for the disclosure of records of the medical examiner’s office vary according to the categories of persons seeking disclosure. The statute differentiates among three classes of record seekers. Two of the classes are restricted to specific types of persons. The third class, into which the defendants fall, is general, encompassing “the public.”
The first of the specific classes defined in § 19a-411 includes “[a]ny state’s attorney, chief of police or other law enforcement official.” Any such official “may, upon request, secure copies of such records or other information deemed necessary by him to the performance of his official duties.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the statute expressly requires law enforcement officials to make some showing of necessity as a condition to obtaining the records of the investigations of the medical examiner’s office.
The second specific class in § 19a-411, less narrowly defined than the first, includes “[pjublic authorities, professional, medical, legal or scientific bodies or universities or similar research bodies.” Within this category, access to records kept by the medical examiner’s office is “in the discretion of the commission [on med-icolegal investigations] . . . upon such conditions and payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the commission. ” (Emphasis added.) The statute itself specifies one such condition: “where such information is made available for scientific or research purposes . . . the identity of the deceased persons shall remain confidential and shall not be published.” Thus, § 19a-411 delimits the rights of scientists and researchers, among others, to obtain access to records of the medical examiner’s office. The statute also expressly narrows the scope of access, when available, to prevent disclosure of the deceased’s identity.
[458] The portion of § 19a-411 governing disclosure to the general public provides that autopsy reports and other investigative reports “may be made available to the public only through the office of the chief medical examiner and in accordance with section 1-19 and the regulations of the commission. Any person may obtain copies of such records upon such conditions and payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the commission, provided no person with a legitimate interest therein shall be denied access to such records.” (Emphasis added.) Unlike the language relating to the two specific classes of record seekers, the language in this portion of the statute does not set forth any express restrictions on disclosure. As the Appellate Court held, however, the statute does condition the availability of autopsy reports to the general public on compliance with the regulations of the commission on medicolegal investigations. Galvin v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 476.
The defendants, focusing on the language “in accordance with § 1-19,” argue that the legislature intended the records of the medical examiner’s office to be public records available for inspection under the provisions of § 1-19. This construction of § 19a-411, however, would allow the general provisions of the statute governing “the public” to supersede the express provisions governing the specifically enumerated classes of disclosure seekers. Under the defendants’ construction, for example, a representative of a medical school conceivably could evade the restrictions that § 19a-411 imposes on disclosure for scientific or research purposes by obtaining an autopsy report as a member of “the public,” whose right to disclosure, under the defendants’ construction, is limited only by § 1-19. Such a broad construction would defeat the policy behind the principle that specific statutory references prevail over general references where the same subject matter is [459] concerned. See Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, supra; Charlton Press, Inc. v. Sullivan, 153 Conn. 103, 110, 214 A.2d 354 (1965).
The restrictions that § 19a-411 imposes on access to the records of the medical examiner manifest a consistent pattern. Both for specific classes, and for the general public, the statute embodies a policy of conditional rather than unfettered disclosure. With regard to public access to autopsy records, the statute expressly mandates that disclosure must be “in accordance with . . . the regulations of the commission.” In seeking copies of records, disclosure seekers are subject to “such conditions and payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the commission.”9 The source of the records is similarly restricted: the public’s access is “only through the office of the chief medical examiner.”
It is in this context that we construe the reference in § 19a-411 on which the defendants rely so heavily: “in accordance with § 1-19.” We cannot accept the defendants’ contention that, notwithstanding the remainder of § 19a-411, this lone, general reference evinces a legislative intent to make autopsy reports public records under § 1-19. To the extent that § 1-19 requires unconditional disclosure of the records of public agencies, its literal incorporation into § 19a-411 would defeat the policy of § 19a-411 and make its own provisions hopelessly inconsistent. We must, if possible, reconcile subsidiary provisions of a statute with the general tenor of the statute as a whole. See, e.g., Peck v. Jacquemin, supra, 63. Accordingly, we conclude that § 19a-411 incorporates only those provisions of § 1-19 that are not inconsistent with the former statute’s restrictions on disclosure. These provisions [460] include, but are not limited to, the exceptions to disclosure set forth in § 1-19 (b), insofar as they apply to the types of records covered by § 19a-411.10
The defendants cite other language in § 19a-411 to buttress their claim that they are entitled to unconditional access to the autopsy report. In particular, they point to a provision in § 19a-411 that requires authorities to seek judicial authorization to limit disclosure of medical examiners’ records. In relevant part, § 19a-411 provides that, “[u]pon application by the chief medical examiner or state’s attorney” to the superior court, the court “may limit such disclosure to the extent that there is a showing by the chief medical examiner or state’s attorney of compelling public interest against disclosure of any particular document or documents.” The defendants claim that this language requires a showing of “compelling public interest” before any person can be denied access to records of the medical examiner’s office.
We do not read the provision so broadly. We reiterate that the statute, considered in its entirety, conditions the right to disclosure on compliance with all relevant administrative regulations and other requirements. Accordingly, we construe the provision at issue to apply only when disclosure is sought to be denied to a party who otherwise complies with the conditions imposed by § 19a-411, including the administrative regulations to which the statute refers. 11
[461] Our construction of § 19a-411 recognizes that the legislature might reasonably have considered the information contained in autopsy reports to be sufficiently sensitive to warrant the imposition of disclosure restrictions not applicable to other records of public agencies. We note, for example, that autopsy reports could contain information which, if disclosed, might cause embarrassment and unwanted public attention to the relatives of the deceased. See generally Meriden Record Co. v. Browning, 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 633, 634, 294 A.2d 646 (1971). Section 19a-411’s prohibition on disclosure of the deceased’s identity in reports furnished for scholarly, research and other related purposes indicates legislative awareness of a privacy interest in the contents of autopsy reports.
In the case of public records, General Statutes § 1-19 (b) (2) provides an exception to disclosure under § 1-19 for “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.” Yet neither § 1-19 nor any other provision of the Freedom of Information Act provides a mechanism whereby a deceased person’s family may invoke a right to privacy before the Freedom of Information Commission. In cases such as the one before us, the family members of the deceased have no standing to receive notice of an FOIC hearing, let alone to object or otherwise be heard at the hearing. Their interests must be represented by the official body seeking [462] to oppose disclosure, in this case the chief medical examiner, whose standing to invoke their claims of privacy is questionable. Our construction of General Statutes § 19a-411 thus permits the vindication of privacy rights that cannot effectively be asserted under the Freedom of Information Act.
General Statutes § 1-19 (a) provides that all records kept on file by public agencies shall be public records “except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute.” General Statutes § 19a-411 provides such an exception for autopsy reports. We hold therefore that autopsy reports are not records accessible to the general public pursuant to General Statutes § 1-19. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellate Court erred in concluding that, notwithstanding § 19a-411, the disclosure regulations of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations contravene the provisions of § 1-19 and are therefore void.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to sustain the appeal of the plaintiff from the order of the Freedom of Information Commission.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.