26-ORD-114 – Jewel Wireman/Big Sandy Area Development District

Opinion Content:

March 23, 2026

In re: Jewel Wireman/Big Sandy Area Development District

Summary: The Big Sandy Area Development District (“the District”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) by failing to cite the applicable
statutory exception that justifies withholding the records and explain
how it applies. However, the District ultimately invoked KRS 209.140,
incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), and its denial is justified
on that basis.

Open Records Decision

On October 22, 2025, Jewel Wireman (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to
the District for copies of “any and all records [the District] may have pertaining to my
mother.” 1 The Appellant noted that she is the “daughter of Grace Wireman,” provided
her mother’s date of birth, and stated that she was “currently in the process of
pursuing emergency guardianship for my mother and would greatly appreciate
guidance on how to properly submit this request under Kentucky’s Open Records
Act.” On October 28, 2025 (after the close of business), the Appellant sent a follow-up
email regarding the status of her October 22, 2025, request. 2 By email dated October
29, 2025, the District’s Executive Director advised the Appellant that her October 28,
2025, email was the first email his agency had received from her. Without further
explanation, the District stated it was “unable to release any information at this time
due to HIPAA regulations. Once you have been appointed Guardian, please provide

1 In particular, the Appellant requested: (1) “Documentation, notes, or reports referencing her
cognitive decline or related issues”; (2) “Records of any individuals or agencies contacted regarding her
condition”; and (3) “Any outcomes, determinations, or follow-up actions recorded by your office.”
2 The Appellant sent her initial request at 3:40 p.m. on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, and the
District’s response was therefore due by the close of business on Wednesday, October 29, 2025. Under
KRS 61.880(1), a public agency has five business days following receipt of a request in which to send
a written response.

me with the documentation and we will provide you with any information that we
possess and that we can legally release that relates to your request.” 3

In response, the Appellant reiterated on October 30, 2025, that she was
“currently in the process of pursuing emergency guardianship” for her mother and
further acknowledged “that certain health information cannot be released without
proper authorization under HIPAA.” However, the Appellant also noted that she
made her original request under the Act, “which allows access to certain non-medical
records held by public agencies, even when guardianship has not yet been
established.” The Appellant clarified that she is “not seeking confidential medical
information, but rather any public documentation, reports, communications, or
determinations maintained” by the District “that may relate to actions taken by” it
relating to her mother. On October 31, 2025, the Executive Director notified the
Appellant that he was forwarding “what information that [sic] I have to our attorney
for review” and stated that he would “get back to” the Appellant.

In a final response dated November 3, 2025, the District stated it was denying
the Appellant’s request “pursuant to restrictions provided for by [HIPAA], as enacted
on August 21, 1996, and the resulting regulations issued by the U.S. Department of
Health and [Human] Services and the HIPAA Privacy Rule.” On December 5, 2025,
the Appellant reiterated that she did not request any records exempt from disclosure
under HIPAA; rather, she asked for “non-medical public records” under the Act and
“specifically acknowledged that any protected medical information could and should
be properly redacted.” This appeal followed.

On appeal, counsel for the District maintains that the District did not receive
the Appellant’s October 22 request until it received her email, to which it was
attached, on October 29. The District also asserts that “neither request stated that
[the Appellant] was not requesting any HIPAA protected medical records.” The
District further noted that the Appellant “does not appear to be questioning that [its]
records regarding Grace Wireman are in fact HIPAA protected records.” According to
the District, its only contact with Grace Wireman resulted from its contract with the
Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“CHFS”), Department for Aging and
Independent Living. 4 The District advises that Grace Wireman died on January 7,
2026, and that Ms. Wireman’s passing does not nullify her privacy rights under

3 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et
seq., is incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(k). Because the Appellant has
consistently maintained that she is not asking for copies of any records that are protected from
disclosure under HIPAA, and the District ultimately invoked KRS 209.140, which is controlling under
the circumstances presented, further discussion of HIPAA is unwarranted.
4 The District included copies of its current agreement with CHFS; the CHFS-approved “Homecare
Case Management Policies and Procedures”; the Notice of Privacy Practices required by CHFS; and
the approved forms the District uses under its agreement with CHFS.

HIPAA. Finally, the District acknowledges that the Appellant’s December 5, 2025,
email clarifies that she is asking for “information regarding any referrals made by
[the District] to [CHFS] pursuant to KRS Chapter 209,” but asserts, for the first time,
that such records are confidential and that KRS 209.140 prohibits disclosure of any
such records. Notwithstanding deficiencies in the District’s initial response, the
Office agrees that KRS 209.140, which is incorporated into the Act by
KRS 61.878(1)(l), is controlling.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must determine within five business
days whether to grant a request for public records or deny it and notify the requester,
in writing, of its decision. When a public agency denies a request under the Act, its
written response must “include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the
withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the
record withheld.” KRS 61.880(1). Its response cannot be merely “limited and
perfunctory.” Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Ky. 1996); KRS 61.880(2)(c).
In other words, “[t]he agency’s explanation must be detailed enough to permit [a
reviewing] court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.” Ky. New
Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 81 (Ky. 2013). However, a public
agency is not “obliged in all cases to justify non-disclosure on a line-by-line or
document-by-document basis.” City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406
S.W.3d 842, 851 (Ky. 2013).

Upon receipt of the Appellant’s request on October 29, 2025, the District sent
a timely response per KRS 61.880(1), but it merely stated it was “unable to release
any information at this time due to HIPAA regulations.” This “limited and
perfunctory response” violated the Act. In particular, the District violated
KRS 61.880(1) by failing to explain how either HIPAA or any regulations it was
invoking applied to specific records it was withholding on that basis. 5 On appeal, the
District cites KRS 209.140 and 922 KAR 5:070 but again fails to explain how
KRS 209.140 applies to the records withheld. Thus, the District’s initial response did
not comply with the Act.

Nevertheless, under KRS 209.140(1), “All information obtained by the
department[6] staff or its delegated representative, as a result of an investigation
made pursuant to this chapter, shall not be divulged” (emphasis added). 7 Insofar as
the District possesses any responsive documents, notes, reports, outcomes,
determinations, or follow-up actions regarding Grace Wireman’s cognitive decline or

5 That response also did not cite HIPAA or any of the regulations promulgated thereunder.
6 For purposes of KRS Chapter 209, which relates to the “protection of adults who may be suffering
from abuse, neglect, or exploitation,” KRS 209.010(1), the term “department” refers to the Department
for Community Based Services within CHFS. KRS 209.020(3).
7 None of the limited exceptions codified at KRS 209.140(1)(a)–(f) apply here.

any related issues, those records fall within the parameters of KRS 209.140(1), and
the District properly denied the Appellant’s request on that basis.

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Michelle D. Harrison
Michelle D. Harrison
Assistant Attorney General

Jewel Wireman, Appellant
Eric Ratliff, BSADD Executive Director
Bill Hickman, BSADD, General Counsel