Investigation of Grand Juror into Cove Manor Convalescent Center, Inc., In re

• Decision Date: 31 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 12839,12839
• Citation: 522 A.2d 1228,203 Conn. 1
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 36,729 In re INVESTIGATION OF the GRAND JUROR INTO COVE MANOR CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC.

Page 1228

522 A.2d 1228

203 Conn. 1, Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 36,729

In re INVESTIGATION OF the GRAND JUROR INTO COVE MANOR

CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC.

No. 12839.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Dec. 4, 1986.

Decided March 31, 1987.

Richard J. Lynch, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Lisa H. Oliveri, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on brief, Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant Department of Health Services).

Stephen E. Ronai, with whom was Louis B. Todisco, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff Arnold J. Ryder).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, DANNEHY, SANTANIELLO and CALLAHAN, JJ.

SANTANIELLO, Justice.

This appeal after certification is from a decision of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court, Borden, J., which granted the cross application of the department of health services (DHS) for access to grand jury materials previously ordered sealed.

The factual basis for this action is as follows. On September 29, 1979, the chief state's attorney, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-47(b), ¹ filed an application requesting that an inquiry be made to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that fraud was committed by long term care providers. Pursuant to § 54-47(c), ² the chief court administrator appointed a senior judge, Hon. Roman J. Lexton, to conduct an investigation in private. ³ Upon completion of the investigation, a report was issued and the transcript and record of the investigation were ordered sealed. Based upon the report of the grand juror, Arnold J. Ryder, the owner and administrator of Cove Manor Convalescent Center, Inc., was arrested and prosecuted. He pleaded nolo contendere to five counts of larceny in the first degree and was subsequently sentenced.

Thereafter, DHS commenced a civil administrative disciplinary proceeding against Ryder. Prior to the hearings, DHS requested the office of the chief state's attorney to seek release of the grand jury transcripts. Ryder brought this action to the Superior Court to deny DHS access to this information. DHS filed a cross application requesting access to all transcripts and the release of any secrecy orders imposed upon witnesses in the grand jury proceeding. The trial court granted the cross application and Ryder appealed to the Appellate Court. The court reversed the trial court, holding that because members of the public or interested parties seeking access to grand jury materials must first demonstrate a particularized need for disclosure of the materials, and because the trial court had not required the department to make such a showing, that court had abused its discretion in granting the department access to the report and in releasing the witnesses from any order of secrecy. ⁴ In re Investigation of the Grand Juror, 4 Conn.App. 544, 558-59, 495 A.2d 1098 (1985). We agree.

The Appellate Court decision in this matter was released on July 30, 1985. Id., at 544, 495 A.2d 1098. A petition for certification of this appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on September 24, 1985. Subsequent to the certification, this court rendered a decision fully analyzing the requirement that a showing of "particularized need" is a prerequisite to the release of grand jury materials. In re Final Grand Jury Report Concerning the Torrington Police Department, 197 Conn. 698, 501 A.2d 377 (1985).

In light of the considerations set forth in In re Final Grand Jury Report Concerning the Torrington Police Department, supra, and the Appellate Court's analysis in this case, it...