Festa v. State, Department of Public Health
| Decision Date | 27 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CV195059848S |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Kristen A. FESTA et al. v. State of Connecticut DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The plaintiffs, Kristen A. Festa and Brian D. Festa, PPA Andrew Festa, bring this action for a declaratory judgment and an injunction, against the defendant, State of Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH or defendant). Specifically the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that DPH violated Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 10-204a-4(c)’s confidentiality provision when it released school specific information to the public, in addition to an order both requiring the defendant to remove immunization data already published on the defendant’s public website or in other publically available publications, and enjoining the defendant from releasing any additional school specific immunization data in the future. The defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because (1) the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; (2) sovereign immunity bars the action; and (3) the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim. The plaintiffs have objected to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The court heard argument on the motion to dismiss and objection on September 9, 2019. During argument, the parties agreed that, in addition to the pleadings, the court could look to any of the documents attached to the pleadings, motion, or objections when considering the defendant’s motion.[1] Having reviewed the pleadings, briefs documents, and arguments of the parties, the court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Because the court agrees with the defendant as to its first jurisdictional claim, it is unnecessary for the court to consider the remaining two jurisdictional issues.
The following allegations, [2] facts, and procedural history, are relevant to the court’s resolution of the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs are Brian D. Festa, next friend for the minor plaintiff Andrew Festa, [3] and Kirsten A. Festa, Andrew’s mother. Brian Festa is Andrew’s father and an attorney. The plaintiffs originally filed this action as self-represented parties, but later retained counsel, who has appeared in this action.[4] Andrew is seven years old and has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He is a student at the Meliora Academy, a nonpublic school in Meriden, which provides educational services to students with ASD and other disorders. Andrew’s parents have utilized a religious exception from the state’s mandatory immunization requirements. See General Statutes § 10-204a.
By law, the commissioner of DPH is charged with employing "the most efficient and practical means for the prevention and suppression of disease ..." General Statutes § 19a-2a. The defendant’s powers and duties include to, "with the health authorities of this and other states, secure information and data concerning the prevention and control of epidemics and conditions affecting or endangering the public health, and compile such information and statistics and shall disseminate among health authorities and the people of the state such information as may be of value to them." General Statutes § 19a-2a(8).
Pursuant to this authority, every year the defendant distributes an immunization survey to all Connecticut schools, licensed group day care homes, and child care centers. On the survey, the schools and day care centers report the total number of students or attendees who completed the required vaccine series, the number who failed to complete the required vaccine series, and the number of children who claimed exemptions for religious or medical reasons.
On May 3, 2019, the defendant published immunization data, on its website, pertaining to children in kindergarten through twelfth grade. That information included the total percentage of students in the state who had received all required immunizations and those that asserted exemptions, as well as the percentage of students at individual schools that asserted exemptions. The released data did not contain any personally identifying information about any student or their family.
On May 3 and May 4, 2019, The Connecticut Mirror and The Hartford Courant published articles on the immunization data released by the defendant. The Connecticut Mirror referred to the percentages of unvaccinated children as "startling." The Hartford Courant ’s article identified the ten schools whose students claimed the most exceptions. The Meliora Academy was one of the ten schools identified, with 18.5 percent of its students claiming medical or religious exemptions to vaccinations. After the publication of the immunization data, members of the public voiced their opinions about the data, which the plaintiffs refer to as "hateful and vitriolic" and harassing. None of these statements of opinion were directed at the plaintiffs specifically, and the plaintiffs did not receive any direct threats until after they filed this lawsuit in their own names.
On May 3, 2019, the same day the defendant published the student immunization data, LeeAnn Ducat, the Founder of Informed Choice CT, wrote to the commissioner of DPH, Renee D. Coleman-Mitchell (Informed Choice Letter). The Informed Choice Letter asked the commissioner to reconsider her decision to disclose immunization data by school because such an action was discriminatory, violated the defendant’s confidentiality regulations, and constituted a possible HIPPA violation. On the day Informed Choice CT wrote the letter, Kirsten and Brian Festa were members of the organization and Brian Festa was a member of the Board.[5] Brian Festa later resigned from the board in June of 2019. The plaintiffs remain members of Informed Choice CT.
The Informed Choice Letter was written on Informed Choice CT letterhead and was only signed by Ducat, as "Founder" of the organization. The letter does not specifically ask for any declaratory relief or cite General Statutes § 4-176 or the defendant’s corresponding regulations pertaining to the declaratory judgment requests it receives. No one was copied on the letter. The letter expresses generalized concerns about the legality of the defendant’s release of the school specific immunization data on behalf of the organization. Except for one anonymous antidote, the letter does not contain any specific information or concerns about any specific person, member, or school, and nowhere states that the letter was sent to protect the rights of any individuals, including the plaintiffs. The letter does not mention the plaintiffs or the Meliora Academy, nor provide any specific information about how the defendant’s decision impacts the plaintiffs. To the extent this letter could be considered sufficient to constitute a request for declaratory relief, the plaintiffs did not seek to intervene in the proceeding.
On May 10, 2019, the commissioner responded to the Informed Choice Letter, disagreeing that the release of the school specific immunization data was illegal, discriminatory, or constituted a violation of HIPPA, and explaining the reasons for her decision to release the data. The commissioner’s response was not directed at any particular student or school and was mailed to LeeAnn Ducat, as Founder of Informed Choice CT only.
The plaintiffs initiated this action on or about May 31, 2019. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant’s publication of the school specific immunization data (1) violated the confidentiality provision of Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 10-204a-4(c); (2) violated the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions; and (3) caused the plaintiffs mental and emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief: (1) declaring that the defendant has violated the state regulation; (2) ordering the defendant to remove the confidential school specific immunization information from the public website and any other publically available sources; and (3) enjoining the defendant from releasing any further immunization information.
On May 31, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs’ application for an ex parte injunction, and the matter was set down for a hearing on July 15, 2019. On July 11, 2019, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and opposed the plaintiffs’ application for injunctive relief.
At the July 15, 2019 hearing, the court raised the issue that it could not proceed with a hearing on the application for temporary relief because the issue of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction had been raised. See Waterbury v Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 527, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002) ("Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it ... The objection of want of [subject matter] jurisdiction may be made at any time ... and the court or tribunal may act on its own motion, and should do so when the lack of jurisdiction is called to its attention ... The requirement of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by any party and can be raised at any stage in the proceedings ... If at any point, it becomes apparent to the court that such jurisdiction is lacking, the appeal must be dismissed" [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiffs’ counsel, who had just appeared in the case, indicated that she wished to file a written opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court set a briefing schedule and scheduled argument on the motion to dismiss for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial