24-ORD-140
June 18, 2024
In re: Makeda Charles/Central State Hospital
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Central State Hospital (“the
Hospital”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office
is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties about
whether the Hospital received a request for records.
Open Records Decision
Makeda Charles1 (“Appellant”) claims she submitted a request to the Hospital
seeking video footage related to the time she was a patient at the Hospital and the
transcript of a call a Hospital nurse placed on April 9, 2022. She then initiated this
appeal, claiming to have received no response from the Hospital.
If an agency receives a request under the Act, it “shall determine within five (5)
[business] days . . . after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the
request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the five (5)
day period, of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis added). Here the Appellant
provided the Office with an undated request she claims to have submitted to the
Hospital. However, the Hospital claims it never received the request, and it notes
that the request provided by the Appellant was unaddressed and did not indicate
receipt by the Hospital. This Office has found it cannot resolve factual disputes
1
The Office takes notice of its decision in 24-ORD-135 involving another appeal initiated by the
Appellant. Based on the record developed in that appeal, the Office found that the Louisville Regional
Airport Authority did not violate the Act when it denied a request for records because the Appellant
is not a resident of the Commonwealth. The Act only gives a “resident of the Commonwealth” the
statutory right to demand access to public records. KRS 61.872(2)(a). It does not, however, prohibit
nonresidents from obtaining public records. Rather, “[t]he official custodian may require the applicant
to provide a statement in the written application of the manner in which the applicant is a resident of
the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to (f).” Id. (emphasis added). Here, the Hospital has not
challenged the Appellant’s status as a “resident of the Commonwealth.” Thus, that issue is not properly
before the Office and its decision in 24-ORD-135 is not dispositive here.between the parties to an open records appeal, such as whether an agency actually
received a request to inspect records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-062; 22-ORD-024; 21-ORD-
233; 21-ORD-163. Thus, the Office is unable to find that the Hospital violated the Act
when it did not issue a response to a request it claims it never received.2
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#253
Distributed to:
Makeda Charles
Vickie D. Walters
Elyssa S. Morris
Peyton Sands
2
On appeal, the Hospital states it has provided the Appellant with 475 pages of records responsive
to requests it did receive from the Appellant. The Hospital further adds that it does not possess records
responsive to the undated request because it does not “have video recording devices in patient units
and did not record or transcribe phone calls.”