Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Green River Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act in responding to Christopher A. Estep's November 30, 1998, request to inspect his "entire medical file." On behalf of GRCC, offender records specialist Teresa Shanklin denied Mr. Estep's request on December 1, advising him that his request was "too general" and asking him to resubmit his request "with specifics." In support, Ms. Shanklin cited KRS 61.872(2) which provides that the custodian may require written application "describing the records to be inspected. " For the reasons that follow, we find that Green River Correctional Complex improperly denied Mr. Estep's request.
It is GRCC's position that prior decisions of this office support its view that a request to inspect a medical file "is analogous to a request for the 'institutional file' and. .. should be responded to in the same manner." In particular, GRCC relies on 93-ORD-116, and the authorities cited therein, for the proposition that "a requesting party must identify with 'reasonable particularity' those documents which he wishes to review." GRCC notes that in that decision the Attorney General recognized that:
the failure of an inmate to identify specific documents in his institutional file preclude[s] release of the documents in the file? At page 3 of [OAG 85-88] we analogized an inmate's institutional file to a personnel file, insofar as both contain exempt and nonexempt documents, holding that a request to inspect an institutional file, like a request to inspect personnel files, "must specify the particular documents within such file to be inspected. "
93-ORD-116, p. 2. GRCC maintains that this line of authority is controlling. We disagree.
An inmate's medical file is not, in our view, analogous to his institutional file. Although both contain records which pertain to the inmate, this office has, as noted above, recognized that the inmate's institutional file contains both exempt and nonexempt records. It is therefore incumbent on the inmate to identify the particular record he wishes to inspect and on the facility to determine if the requested record is exempt and the request must be denied. It is in this sense that an inmate's institutional file is analogous to a personnel file. Conversely, GRCC acknowledges that an inmate's medical file consists of records which the inmate is entitled to review with one narrow exception: psychological or psychiatric records which the inmate's psychologist or psychiatrist has advised the facility to withhold. An inmate's request to inspect his medical file "is couched in sufficiently specific terms to permit the records custodian to determine what records it encompasses and whether those documents are exempt. " 93-ORD-116, p. 2. While it may require some effort on the part of the facility to segregate psychological or psychiatric records, we do not believe that this relieves the facility of its obligation to make available for the inmate's inspection medical records which pertain to him and to which he must be afforded access. If access to any such records is denied, the facility must support its denial by reference to the specific exception authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1).
Mr. Estep must, of course, "accept the necessary consequences of his confinement," and GRCC may implement policies and procedures relating to on-site inspection, so long as those policies do not "unreasonably delay inmate access." 95-ORD-105, p. 5. We see no reason, however, to require Mr. Estep to make piecemeal requests for medical records relating to specific illnesses or injuries when those records are, by-in-large, open to him.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.