Annotations for Decision

File of complaints by psychologist’s clients alleging sexual misconduct was a public record containing information “of a very personal nature,” disclosure of which would have constituted a serious invasion of personal privacy. Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992). Full Details

To infer that subdivision (1)(a) of this section may be invoked only where the subject information is already protected under a different paragraph would require a reading of the statute which is, to say the least, esoteric — and which, incidentally, would render subdivision (1)(a) a nullity. A plain reading of subdivision (1)(a) reveals an unequivocal legislative intention that certain records, albeit they are “public,” are not subject to inspection, because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Judging by order, if nothing more, one might say that subdivision (1)(a) is the foremost exception to the disclosure rule. Certainly it is an independently viable exception, not subordinate to any other, and not restricted to preliminary materials or non-final matters. Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992). Full Details