Request By:
Timothy Eades, # 173254
Beth Harper
Leigh Meredith
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Little Sandy Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Timothy Eades' April 21, 2008, request to conduct an inspection of his medical file in "both hard copy and electronic" format. For the reasons that follow, we find that although its initial denial of Mr. Eades' request was erroneous, assuming he is not restricted in his movements within the facility or otherwise foreclosed from conducting onsite inspection by virtue of his confinement, LSCC ultimately corrected this error by affording him the opportunity to inspect his medical file.
In a response dated April 29, 2008, LSCC denied Mr. Eades' request explaining that "KRS 61.874 . . . may require payment of fees." Records Officer Beth Harper indicated that his account balance was zero, and that he must "send a signed money authorization with [his] request in order to take funds from [his] account." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Eades initiated this appeal, citing OAG 82-396 and asserting that the Open Records Act "provides that any person can inspect the original record and cannot be required only to purchase a copy of the original record. "
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Eades' appeal, LSCC modified its position, acknowledging that an error had been made and concluding that he had "since been granted access to inspect his medical records and in fact reviewed the requested records on May 12, 2008 at 2:45 p.m." In support, LSCC attached both a "Request" and "Affidavit" signed by Ms. Harper and Mr. Eades.
Mr. Eades subsequently challenged LSCC's supplemental response. He asserted that, LSCC's statements to the contrary notwithstanding, he was only permitted to inspect " partial records." (Emphasis in original.) Continuing, Mr. Eades observed:
I was allowed to inspect written medical records that are outdated. All of the more current medical records pertaining to me are in electronic format only and such records "are not available for inspection on the computer," according to prison medical personnel who attended my May 12, 2008, inspection of records. Instead, a portion of my electronic medical records were copied and then disclosed to me. Other such records exist, relevant to doctor's notes, nurse's notes, and lab results pertaining to my visits to the prison medical department on various dates not accounted for in the electronic records copied on May 12, 2008, and then made available to me.
Having voluntarily affixed his signature to an open records request and disposition form confirming that he had reviewed his medical file on May 12, 2008, Mr. Eades effectively waived any argument that the disclosure was deficient. 1 With regard to the "unaccounted for" records, Mr. Eades may submit a new open records request. In so doing, we urge him to describe the "unaccounted for" records in such a way that "a reasonable person [can] ascertain the nature and scope of his [new] request,"
Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008), differentiating the newly sought records from those already disclosed.
In the absence of any assertion that he was foreclosed from conducting inspection by virtue of the circumstances of his confinement, LSCC erred in denying Mr. Eades' request to inspect his medical file on the basis of his inability to pay for copies. On this issue, the Attorney General has observed:
Although an inmate enjoys the same rights as any other requester under the Open Record Act, he "is uniquely situated with respect to the exercise of [these] rights." 95-ORD-105, p. 5. Thus, at page 5 of 95-ORD-105, we stated that "all persons have the same standing to inspect and receive copies of public records, and are subject to the same obligations for receipt thereof," but "an inmate's movements within [a correctional] facility are presumably restricted, and the manner in which he conducts his financial business dictated by the facility." 95-ORD-105, citing 94-ORD-90, p. 2. We held that pursuant to KRS 61.872(3)(b) and KRS 61.874(1), a correctional facility may properly require prepayment for copies of public records that are requested by inmates under the Open Records Act since the Act "contains no waiver of the prepayment requirements for inmates. " Id . at 6.
03-ORD-225, p. 5, citing 00-ORD-225, p. 3. Continuing, we recognized that an inmate who is subject to restrictions on the exercise of his right of onsite inspection, and is unable to pay for copies, may be denied access to the records he seeks until those restrictions have been lifted or his inmate account contains sufficient funds to cover copying costs.
Mr. Eades expressly requested access to, rather than copies of, his medical file, and because he is not restricted in his ability to inspect the file we find that LSCC's original response was in error. LSCC does not contest this view, acknowledging the error in its May 13 supplemental response. Having recognized its error, LSCC moved to correct it by affording Mr. Eades access to his medical file. Mr. Eades attested to this review by affixing his signature to the "disposition" portion of an open records request and disposition form, confirming that he had reviewed his medical file on May 12. Nothing on that open records request and disposition form suggests that he was dissatisfied with the paucity of records produced, or that he was coerced into signing the form. Because he is not foreclosed from submitting a new open records request for any records "unaccounted for," or from appealing any dispute he has with LSCC relative to subsequent disclosure, we find no additional error in LSCC's ultimate disposition of Mr. Eades' request.
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Eades does not argue, or offer any proof, that he signed the form under duress.