Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-146g (2026)

Access to communications and records by persons engaged in research

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person engaged in research may have access to psychiatric communications and records which identify patients where needed for such research, if such person's research plan is first submitted to and approved by the director of the mental health facility or his designee.

(b) The communications and records shall not be removed from the mental health facility which prepared them. Coded data or data which does not identify a patient may be removed from a mental health facility, provided the key to the code shall remain on the premises of the facility.

(c) The mental health facility and the person doing the research shall be responsible for the preservation of the anonymity of the patients and shall not disseminate data which identifies a patient except as provided by sections 52-146d to 52-146j, inclusive.

(1969, P.A. 819, S. 5; P.A. 82-160, S. 67.)

History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

Cited. 169 C. 223. Psychiatrist-patient privilege not waived and testimony of psychiatrist hired by state, but not as a result of court order, held inadmissible. 178 C. 626. Cited. 191 C. 453; 211 C. 555; 236 C. 625; 238 C. 313.

Cited. 1 CA 384; 14 CA 552; 19 CA 304; 24 CA 287.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n (Conn. 2023).
Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n (Conn. 2023). “ayment is warranted and to make the payment; General Statutes § 52-146f (8); (9) the dis- closure is to a person engaged in research, limited to records necessary for such research, the director of the mental health facility has reviewed and approved the research plan, and the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.