To check a Louisville food complaint, compare the request with its dated inspection report. A resolved complaint is not the same as a passed inspection. The official environmental-health inspection-data dictionary separates complaint resolution from visit results. Its complaint flag applies to complaint-related inspections; it does not define the flag encoding. Read the individual report before interpreting a row’s outcome.
Preserve three identities before comparing outcomes
The dictionary distinguishes the associated request, the permitted establishment and the individual visit:
| Official fields | Defined role |
|---|---|
RequestID | Associated request or complaint, when applicable |
EstablishmentID | Permit number joining to establishment attributes |
InspectionID, InspectionDate | Visit identifier and date |
InspectionType, IsFollowUpInsp | Visit type and follow-up indicator |
Keep those three identities in your notes. A useful working line is “this request, this establishment, this dated visit,” followed by the document you actually opened. That makes it easier to spot a copied score belonging to a different visit or a similarly named branch. Treat a missing request value as unresolved context, rather than inventing an explanation for why the visit occurred.
For the ordinary facility and violation-report route, use the Louisville inspection-search guide. Keep the exact address and dated report together. A dataset catalog describes a resource; it is not a facility report.
Ask what each outcome field actually answers
The dictionary separately defines IsComplaintResolved, an applicable letter-grade field, score, and action-code description. It also has a food/retail designation for establishments needing two inspection types. These are distinct attributes, not interchangeable outcomes.
When someone says a complaint was “closed,” ask which evidence they have: a request-workflow value, an inspector’s dated findings, or an administrative action. Record that answer explicitly. Do not rewrite a workflow label as a finding that an allegation was unsubstantiated or every violation corrected. If the public excerpt omits the underlying report, leave that question open.
Imagine a fictional refrigerator complaint followed by an inspection and then a return visit. The useful comparison asks what the first visit found and what the return actually checked. It does not assume that the complaint flag changed at any particular stage. This is an illustration, not a Louisville case or example of real flag values. The follow-up inspection guide explains how to compare correction evidence with earlier findings.
Before asking about a discrepancy, assemble a short comparison that someone else can follow. Put the downloaded row’s identifiers on one line, the public report’s identifiers on another, and mark which details actually match. Include the retrieval date and the report date separately. If you have only a name and a workflow flag, state that limitation rather than filling the missing visit from a nearby result.
When sharing that comparison, prefer a link and specific report identifier over a cropped screenshot that hides column headings. Preserve enough context to distinguish a score, action and request status. This method helps the agency answer the narrower record-matching question; it does not establish that the complaint was resolved correctly.
Which Louisville file answers which question
Louisville Metro publishes several inspection datasets, and they don’t hold the same rows. Pick the one that matches your question before comparing anything:
- Environmental Health Bulk Data – Inspections. Routine and complaint-driven inspections, with
RequestID,IsComplaintResolved, the follow-up flag and aNextInspDatefield. This is the only one of the three that links a visit to a complaint. - Restaurant Inspection Scores. Dates, grades, scores and locations for the past year for all establishments. No complaint fields, so it can’t tell you whether a visit was complaint-driven.
- Inspection Results – Food Service Establishments. One row per permit with the three most recent scores, grades and dates. Older visits drop off as new ones arrive.
A NextInspDate value is a scheduled or expected date, not a visit. Treat it the way you would a follow-up date written on a paper form: a reason to look for a later inspection, not proof that one happened.
A grade and a score can disagree
Louisville’s letter isn’t a straight conversion of the number. Under the Louisville and Jefferson County Board of Health Sanitary Code, Chapter 400, the inspector issues a results placard at every retail food inspection, and a case study prepared with the health department describes the C placard as marking a facility that failed to meet the minimum requirements of the Kentucky food code on its most recent inspection. A critical violation can produce a C even when the numeric score looks high, and a follow-up visit is then made. So when a complaint-related row shows a score in the 90s next to a C, the two fields are answering different questions, and neither one says the complaint was confirmed or resolved. Read the dated report, then check for a later follow-up row before describing the outcome.
Do not merge rows just because the permit matches
If two rows refer to the same establishment, retain their separate visit identities, dates and food/retail designations. Matching permits alone cannot tell you that one row is redundant. Conversely, two visit IDs cannot establish that there were two complaints. Compare the request context and the reports before labeling either relationship.
If a table and report appear inconsistent, send the Louisville Metro food-safety program the exact establishment, address, date and identifiers you have. Ask which document describes the request or visit in question. Suggested wording: “Does this row refer to the same inspection as this dated report, and what record explains its action or resolution?”
For how routine inspection grades work in Louisville, including follow-ups after a C, see Louisville restaurant inspection grades.
A complaint-resolution flag does not guarantee current food safety or determine today’s permit status. Official sources checked October 5, 2026; the Louisville dataset listings were rechecked October 20, 2026.