Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that Kentucky State Reformatory did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Byron Bradford's May 16, 2012, request to view his medical records. 1 Our decision is based on the reasoning set forth in 08-ORD-044 and 08-ORD-067.
In 08-ORD-044, the Attorney General approved corrections policies requiring inmate submission of a request form that included the inmate's identification information and housing assignment and the submission of an inmate money transfer authorization. At pages 3 and 4 of that open records decision, a copy of which is attached, we reminded the inmate requester that "an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement, including policies relating to application for, and receipt of, public records" as long as "those policies do not interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the inmate's statutory right of access to nonexempt public records . . . ." Citing 95-ORD-105, p. 3. Reasonable delays occasioned by adherence to these policies are among the "necessary consequences of confinement" and are warranted insofar as they ultimately facilitate access by ensuring proper submission as to form and content and verifying the requester's identity. This is particularly important when the requester wishes to access his medical or psychological records. Thus, in 08-ORD-067, a copy of which is attached, the Attorney General approved a policy requiring inmate use of a particular medical records release form.
Here, as in 08-ORD-044 and 08-ORD-067, Mr. Bradford was not denied access to the records identified in his request. Instead, he was required to adhere to policies that did not "amend, alter, enlarge, or limit the terms of the Open Records Act. "
Department of Corrections v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 662 (Ky. 2008) citing
Camera Center, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 34 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Ky. 2000). Upon receipt of KSR's supplemental response to his appeal, Mr. Bradford identified circumstances unique to him that delay his access to nonexempt public records. He did not provide KSR with a copy of his reply. The policies to which he objects are not facially violative of his general right of access and were approved in the referenced open records decisions. We adopt, in full, the reasoning set forth in those decisions and affirm KSR's disposition of his request. The objections he raises in his reply to KSR's response are not ripe for review since KSR was not apprised of these allegations before or after he initiated this appeal.
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.
Distributed to:
Byron Bradford, # 159856Karen VestyLinda M. Keeton
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Bradford complains that KSR's required use of a "request to view" form that must be signed by a Classification and Treatment Officer (C.T.O.) before submission "creates unnecessary impediments to the process and constitutes a denial."