Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex ("EKCC") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in its disposition of inmate Chris Hawkins' March 31, 2014, request for a copy of certain medical records, or by charging excessive fees for duplication. We find no violation of the Act.
Mr. Hawkins' request was received on April 1, 2014. On April 8, 2014, the facility timely mailed him all available records pursuant to KRS 197.025(7), which allows five (5) days for a response, exclusive of weekends and legal holidays. The one item in controversy in Mr. Hawkins' appeal initiated on April 12, 2014, was identified in his request as "verification of appointment with psychiatrist here @ EKCC reflecting when appointment is." He alleges that he received "the results of the session" instead of what he wanted, an "advance 'verification of the appointment. '"
On April 25, 2014, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Assistant General Counsel Amy V. Barker responded to Mr. Hawkins' appeal. She states that a "review of [the item] in his request does not specify that he sought only advance verification. No advance verification existed, so the only record verifying the appointment was provided." A public agency cannot afford a requester access to a record that it does not have or that does not exist. 99-ORD-98. In general, it is not our duty to investigate in order to locate documents which the public agency states do not exist. There is nothing in the record in this case to indicate that an advance verification of a psychiatrist appointment is required or otherwise should exist.
Mr. Hawkins' other complaint on appeal is that he was sent duplicate copies of records, as well as the aforementioned copy of a record he did not mean to request, and is entitled to a refund of 60 cents. Ms. Barker states as follows:
EKCC staff met with inmate Hawkins to review the records. It was determined that there were duplicate records. Counsel was informed that the same records were located in more than one place in the EMR and so duplicates had been printed from the different locations. The person who responded to the request believed the other record to be responsive, but a refund was agreed to at the meeting with inmate Hawkins since he explained it was not what he requested. The institution refunded the initial $ 1.40 charged for the records and then made a new charge for .80 to allow a refund of .60 as requested by inmate Hawkins in his appeal letter.
We accordingly find the refund issue moot and conclude that EKCC's actions were otherwise in accordance with the Open Records Act.
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 proceedings.
Distributed to:
Chris Hawkins, # 103061Amy V. Barker, Esq.M. F. Lacys