Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) relative to Roger Gooch's open records request violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Gooch contended that the RCC Records Department "has refused to respond" to his request. Attached to his letter of appeal, was a copy of a request dated July 20, 2005, in which Mr. Gooch requested:
"Within (3) days of the above date (according to the Kentucky Laws KRS Ch. 61) I will ask for your Records Dept. to comply and respond to the foregoing request. I respectfully request to 'inspect' all medical records that concerns me or refers to my name of 2005"
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney, Department of Corrections, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Dennis advised:
There is no basis upon which to find that the RCC violated the Kentucky Open Records Act. According to documentation contained in Mr. Gooch's medical records folder (which is now in the custody of the Kentucky State Penitentiary), the above-referenced request was received by the RCC medical records dept. on 07/25/2005. On 07/27/2005, RCC medical records custodian Liz Patton allowed Mr. [Gooch] to review his medical records folder, including H & P (history and physical), labs and progress notes. Ms. Patton noted in her disposition on the response that, following this inspection, Mr. Gooch requested three (3) pages to be copied. Following her call to inmate accounts to verify that Mr. Gooch had sufficient funds for these copies, Ms. Patton provided Mr. Gooch with the copies he requested. Documents showing this disposition of Mr. Gooch's request are attached for your reference.
Pursuant to KRS 197.025(7), the Department of Corrections has five (5) business days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, to provide a response to an open records request. The RCC Medical Dept. received Mr. Gooch's request on 07/25/2005 and responded by providing him the opportunity to inspect records on 07/27/2005. At the time of inspection, Mr. Gooch requested copies of 3 documents he reviewed, which were provided to him upon payment of .30 from his inmate account.
Mr. Gooch fails to demonstrate that the RCC violated the Kentucky Open Records Act. In fact, the RCC medical records department's response to Mr. Gooch's request was exemplary. For these reasons, the response of the RCC medical records department to Mr. Gooch's open records request should be upheld.
Documentation provided by the Department of Corrections supports its position that the RCC did not violate the Open Records Act. The records show that Mr. Gooch's request, dated 07/20/2005, was received on 07/25/2005, and responded to by the RCC on 07/27/2005. A "COPY REQUEST FORM" shows that on 07/27/2005, Mr. Gooch requested three copies of records at a charge of .30? The form is signed by both Mr. Gooch and Ms. Patton., We find the RCC timely responded to Mr. Gooch's request, as required by KRS 197.025(7), and provided him with copies of records which he requested. Under these facts, we conclude that the RCC did not violate 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 proceeding.
Roger Gooch, # 186577Roederer Correctional ComplexP. O. Box 69LaGrange, KY 40031
Tandy WellsRecords CustodianRoederer Correctional ComplexP. O. Box 69LaGrange, KY 40031
Emily DennisOffice of Legal ServicesJustice Cabinet125 Holmes Street, 2nd FloorFrankfort, KY 40601