Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; Gordon Slone, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether Kentucky State Penitentiary ("KSP") violated the Open Records Act in denying a request from inmate Chris Hawkins for a listing of his medications and a copy of a prescription. We find no error by KSP in denying his requests due to his failure to comply with the policy, instituted by the KSP Warden in compliance with Department of Corrections Policies and Procedures 6.1, for requesting copies of medical records. KSP's requirement that inmates must use a specific form, when requesting medical records, from their caseworkers, and submit the request on that specific form is affirmed under prior decisions of this office and KRS 197.025.
By request dated December 15, 2017, Mr. Hawkins requested a listing of his medications and a copy of his most recent prescription for a particular medication. The request was made on a "Request to Inspect Public Records" form. The request was stamped as received by the KSP Open Records Coordinator on December 18, 2017. KSP has five calendar days to respond, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays pursuant to KRS 197.025(7). A timely response was sent on December 19, 2017, by Melissa Edmonds, KSP, explaining that the requests were denied as Mr. Hawkins had failed to obtain, and use, the specific form from his caseworker for requesting medical records. Mr. Hawkins appealed that response to this Office.
After receipt of the appeal, Ms. Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of KSP. Ms. Barker's response included a copy of a blank "Request to View/Obtain Health Information" form that is to be requested from the inmate's caseworker and used to request medical records. Ms. Barker provided a memorandum issued by Randy White, Warden, KSP, June 15, 2017, which requires that an inmate "[u]se the designated Medical Open Records request form for medical document requests. This form is to be obtained from the Caseworkers. " Ms. Barker explained that the medical open records form "is designed to provide information needed to locate the correct medical records, to have a secure process for advanced payment, and to protect private medical records." Ms. Barker concurred with Ms. Edmonds' explanation that Mr. Hawkins failed to follow the policy instituted by Warden White in that he did not obtain the designated medical open records form from his caseworker and did not use that particular form to request medical records. Mr. Hawkins included a copy of Warden White's June 15, 2017, memorandum with his appeal, reflecting his awareness of the requirement to use the particular form when requesting medical records.
In addressing the unique issues surrounding access to public records in the context of a correctional facility, the Attorney General has repeatedly recognized:
An inmate in a correctional facility is uniquely situated with respect to the exercise of his rights under the Open Records Act. Although, as we have recently observed, "all persons have the same standing to inspect and receive copies of public records, and are subject to the same obligations for receipt thereof," an inmate's movements within the facility are presumably restricted . . . Accordingly, an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement, including policies relative to application for, and receipt of, public records.
95-ORD-105, p. 3 (citing 94-ORD-40, p. 2.)
Moreover, this office has recognized that the Department of Corrections is vested with broad discretion in matters related to the safety, security, and operation of its correctional institutions. See 94-ORD-40. In a proper exercise of its discretion, the Department incorporated CPP 6.1 through 501 KAR 6:020. CPP 6.1.II.B.1 requires an inmate to obtain a request to inspect public records "from the office or individual designated by the Warden of each institution ? ." In compliance with CPP 6.1 II.B.1, Warden White's memorandum, June 15, 2017, specifically designates the caseworkers as the persons from whom the medical records request form is to be obtained and requires that that specific form be used to request medical records.
Our office has consistently recognized that KRS 197.025(1) 1 vests the Commissioner, Department of Corrections, or his designee (such as Warden White), with broad discretion in determining when a threat is posed to the safety and security of the inmates, staff, and institution. 03-ORD-190, p. 5. This Office has recognized that KRS 197.025(1) "vests the commissioner [or his designee] with broad, although not unfettered, discretion to deny inmates access to records." 96-ORD-179, p. 3. We are not in the position to second guess Warden White or to conclude that the policy requiring inmates to use a specific form when requesting medical records was an abuse of this discretion. We find no violation by KSP in denying Mr. Hawkins' requests based upon his failure to obtain the correct form from his caseworker, and his failure to use that form to request medical records.
In his appeal, Mr. Hawkins also complains that Melissa Edmonds incorrectly dated her response on the form used to respond to him. The form was dated as received by the KSP Medical Department on December 19, 2017, but Ms. Edmonds dated her response as December 18, 2017. On the form she merely responded "Denied. Please see attached memos." On the memorandum attached to that denial, Ms. Edmonds used the correct date of December 19, 2017. In Ms. Edmonds' explanation, included with Ms. Barker's response to the appeal, she stated that the December 18 date was an inadvertent mistake and that the date on her memorandum, December 19, was the actual date she responded to Mr. Hawkins' request. We find no violation of the Open Records Act in this inadvertent error.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes