Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. Todd County Standard, Inc.
488 S.W.3d 1
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- The Todd County Standard requested records (Feb 15, 2011) from the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) about a child, A.D., whose death suggested abuse; the Standard relied on KRS 620.050(12)(a) (child fatality provision).
- The Cabinet failed to meet the ORA three-business-day response requirement and replied belatedly, stating it possessed no records concerning A.D.’s fatality.
- The Standard appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General under KRS 61.880; the AG requested specific written substantiation from the Cabinet, which the Cabinet refused to provide, again asserting no records existed.
- The AG issued Opinion ll-ORD-074 finding procedural and substantive violations, but did not reach whether the records were subject to disclosure because the Cabinet refused to substantiate its denial.
- The Standard sued in Franklin Circuit Court to enforce the AG opinion; the Cabinet then admitted it did possess records and moved for in camera review. The circuit court ordered production, found the Cabinet willfully violated the ORA, awarded attorney’s fees and statutory penalties, and imposed post-judgment interest.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed enforcement and willfulness findings (attorney’s fees, costs, penalties), but reversed the imposition of post-judgment interest and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly enforced the AG opinion and ordered production of records | AG opinion had force of law because Cabinet failed to appeal; court must enforce and order production | AG did not determine merits; enforcement improper because Cabinet was not adjudicated to have to produce records | Affirmed: enforcement proper here because Cabinet obstructed AG review and failed to appeal, so court could order production under KRS 61.880(5)(b) |
| Whether the Cabinet willfully withheld records to justify attorney’s fees, costs, and statutory penalties | Cabinet intentionally misrepresented nonexistence and frustrated AG review; fees and penalties appropriate | Cabinet contended its interpretation/explanation justified its conduct (e.g., request specificity) | Affirmed: willfulness finding not clearly erroneous; fees, costs, and penalties under KRS 61.882(5) proper |
| Whether post-judgment interest under KRS 360.040 applies to the award against the Cabinet | Interest should run on the monetary award | Cabinet immune from KRS 360.040 because it is a state agency performing governmental functions; no explicit statutory authorization for interest | Reversed: post-judgment interest not authorized against the Cabinet absent explicit legislative authorization |
| Whether summary judgment (and production order) was proper | Summary judgment appropriate because AG opinion binding and facts undisputed | Summary judgment improper because AG did not resolve merits and Cabinet should be allowed to assert exemptions | Affirmed: summary judgment and production order proper given Cabinet’s obstruction of administrative review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 172 S.W.3d 333 (Ky. 2005) (agency claiming nonexistence of records must overcome presumption of existence when statutory authority suggests records should exist)
- City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842 (Ky. 2013) (if AG decision is not appealed within 30 days it becomes binding and enforceable in circuit court)
- Com. v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.2d 655 (Ky.) (open records requests need not be drafted with the specificity of discovery to avoid narrowing interpretations)