Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Sarah Ellen Eads Adkins,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the Open Records Act when it refused to provide a copy of the Department of Correction's Hepatitis Management Plan upon request of inmate Justin Dubiel. For the reasons stated below, this office finds that DOC properly refused to provide the requested record pursuant to KRS 197.025(2).
On June 18, 2018, Appellant, an inmate at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), requested the Department of Corrections Health Services Division and LLCC provide him with the healthcare management plan for Hepatitis C and/or DOC protocol for Hepatitis C. LLCC responded in an undated letter denying Appellant's request. On July 18, 2018, the DOC Health Services Division denied Appellant's request on the basis that KRS 197.025(2) does not require release of any records to Appellant that do not contain a specific reference to him. This appeal followed.
KRS 197.025(7) requires DOC to respond within "within five (5) days after receipt of the request, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays." Appellant did not make a specific complaint that DOC's response on July 18 was untimely, but we note that the response was not issued within five business days after receipt. Further, as LLCC did not date its response, we are unable to determine whether LLCC's response was sent outside the five days allowed. The late response constitutes a procedural violation by DOC. We remind DOC that the procedural requirements of the Act "are not mere formalities, but are an essential part of the prompt and orderly processing of an open records request." 93-ORD-125, p. 5. Although DOC acknowledges that its response was late, we urge DOC to review the cited provision to insure that future responses conform to the Open Records Act.
Although we find that DOC's initial response was procedurally deficient, we affirm DOC's subsequent and substantive response denying Appellant's requests for institutional records
KRS 197.025(2) provides, in part, that DOC "shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from an inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of [DOC], unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual ." (emphasis added). KRS 197.025(2) is incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1).
In a letter sent to this office after his appeal was filed, Appellant argues that there is in fact a specific reference to him in the Hepatitis C health management plan. However, this office has held repeatedly held that these type of management records relate to the general care of prisoners with Hepatitis C and do not contain inmate-specific information. See 07-ORD-219; 15-ORD-146; 03-ORD-252. DOC is not required to provide Appellant with copies of records which contain no inmate-specific information. KRS 197.025(2). Accordingly, DOC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Appellant's request.
A party aggrieved by this decision shall 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.