Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This open records appeal having been presented to the Office of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that University Medical Center, Inc., is a public agency as defined in KRS 61.870(1)(j). UMC's records are therefore public records as defined in KRS 61.870(2) and subject to public inspection unless statutorily excluded by one or more of the exceptions codified at KRS 61.878(1)(a) through (n). 1
Because UMC failed to meet its statutorily assigned burden of proving that KRS 61.870(1)(i) and (j) authorized denial of Keith Smith's July 7, 2011, request for documents "discuss[ing] changes in the recognized patient use of the Gold Card at any facility controlled by [University of Louisville Hospital] for the past year, including but not limited to changes in how the card may be used, changes in billing, . . . changes in which health care costs are covered by the card . . . implementation of said changes[,] . . . [and] the purpose of the changes," we find that UMC violated the Act. 11-ORD-157 is dispositive of the issue of UMC's status under the Open Records Act. We adopt the reasoning of 11-ORD-157 on the issue of UMC's public agency status. To the extent that 11-ORD-158 addresses UMC's failure to offer a particularized explanation of how the disputed records are protected from disclosure by KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j), that decision is dispositive of the issue of UMC's failure to meet its burden of proof. We adopt the reasoning of 11-ORD-158 on this issue. UMC indirectly acknowledges that some responsive documents formed the basis of its final action in the concluding sentence of numbered section 3 of its supplemental response. It is incumbent on the agency to locate and review these and all other nonexempt records responsive to Mr. Smith's request. In the absence of proof supporting its claim, we cannot conclude that all records responsive to Mr. Smith's request are protected from disclosure by KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j).
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.
Distributed to:
Keith SmithRachel OwsleyTom Halbleib
Footnotes
Footnotes