24-ORD-186
August 28, 2024
In re: Ronald Corman/Crime Victims Compensation Board
Summary: The Crime Victims Compensation Board (“the Board”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it could not provide
records that do not exist.
Open Records Decision
On July 15, 2024, inmate Ronald Corman (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
the Board for “[t]he Policy and Procedure used by the [Board] or the OCA [Office of
Claims and Appeals] in which [sic] determines the amount to be intercepted from the
Inmates account on a monthly basis” and “[a]n itemized statement of all monies that
were dispersed towards the victim with a breakdown of what went where.” In a timely
response, the Board advised the Appellant that “the Department of Corrections
determines the amount to be deducted from inmates’ accounts as payment to be
applied to the debt owed to the OCA after the [Board] awards a claim” and that he
must therefore “request the relevant policy and procedure from the Department of
Corrections.” However, the Board provided a copy of the Notice of Intercept sent by
the Kentucky Claims Commission to the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, which
indicated the amount the Appellant owed. In response to the Appellant’s request for
an “itemized statement,” the Board provided “a copy of the Final Order, which
indicates the amount of the award, its purpose, and its recipient(s).”1 This appeal
followed.
Under KRS 49.470(1), “[a]ny payment of benefits to or on behalf of a victim”
pursuant to an award by the Board “creates a debt due and owing to the state by any
person found to have committed such criminal act in either a civil or criminal court
proceeding in which he is a party.” On appeal, the Board explains that the
Department of Corrections, not the Board, is responsible for determining the monthly
amount to be deducted from an inmate’s account to pay such a debt, and therefore
1
Pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), the Board redacted from its Final Order the address of the crime
victim. The Appellant does not dispute this redaction.the Board has no policy or procedure on that subject.2 Once a public agency states
affirmatively that it has no responsive records, the burden shifts to the requester to
present a prima facie case that such records exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette
Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant has not
attempted to make such a showing. Accordingly, the Board did not violate the Act
when it could not provide a policy used by the Board to perform a function it does not
perform.
Regarding the Appellant’s request for an “itemized statement” of funds
disbursed pursuant to the award “with a breakdown of what went where,” the Board
provided a copy of its Final Order, which awards $21,690.12 to the victim for “lost
wages related to injuries sustained during an assault” and $3,309.88 to UC Health
for outstanding medical expenses related to the assault.3 The Board affirmatively
states that it does not possess an “itemized statement” containing more detail
regarding disbursement of funds. Again, the Appellant has failed to present a prima
facie case that any such list exists or should exist. Therefore, the Board did not violate
the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
2
Among other assertions, the Appellant claims the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex is
misapplying Corrections Policy and Procedure (“CPP”) 15.7 in determining the monthly deduction.
Thus, the Appellant is aware that CPP 15.7 is the governing policy.
3
The Final Order adopts the Recommended Order, which contains the same information as to funds
disbursed. The Board provided a copy of the Recommended Order to the Appellant on May 15, 2024,
in response to a previous open records request.#329
Distributed to:
Ronald Corman, #268763
Shelby Bevins-Sullivan, Esq.
Linda Horsman, Esq.
John Hardesty, Esq.
Mr. Raymond Shields