Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Kentucky Blogs -> Kentucky Cases

Kentucky

: Kentucky Cases

COA 2010 Minutes for November 19 , 2010 (Nos. 1088-1107)

<p><a target="_self"></a><a href="http://apps.courts.ky.gov/Appeals/Minutes/MNT11192010.pdf" target="_self"><strong>COA 2010 Minutes for November 19</strong></a><a href="http://apps.courts.ky.gov/Appeals/Minutes/MNT11042011.pdf" target="_self"><strong> </strong></a><strong><a href="http://apps.courts.ky.gov/Appeals/Minutes/MNT08202010.pdf" target="_self">, 2010 (Nos. 1088-1107)</a></strong></p> <ul> <li>Click on the above link for the full text of minutes with link to full text of each decision.</li> <li>Link to <a href="http://www.courts.ky.gov/courtofappeals/minutes.htm">AOC Page</a> with current minutes and archived minutes links</li> <li>Total number of decisions:  19</li> <li>Published Decisions:  2 (1089; 1091)</li> </ul> <p><strong>PUBLISHED DECISIONS (with link to full text at AOC):</strong></p> <p>1089.  CRIMINAL.  INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANC OF COUNSEL.  PAROLE ADVICE.<br />PRIDHAM (RUSSELL TIM)<br />VS.<br />COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY<br />OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING<br />SHAKE (PRESIDING JUDGE)<br />TAYLOR (CONCURS) AND STUMBO (CONCURS)<br /><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2008-CA-002190.pdf" target="_self">2008-CA-002190-MR</a><br />TO BE PUBLISHED<br />HARDIN</p> <p>SHAKE, SENIOR JUDGE: Russell Pridham appeals from a Hardin Circuit Court denial of his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion for post- conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Pridham requests relief based upon his counsel's gross misadvice concerning parole eligibility. The trial court denied his motion, without an evidentiary hearing, based upon the Kentucky Supreme Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Padilla, 253 S.W.3d 482 (Ky. 2008) (overturned by Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed. 2d 284 (2010)), that incorrect advice concerning collateral issues does not warrant post conviction relief. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Commonwealth v. Padilla, 253 S.W.3d 482, we reverse the Hardin Circuit Court's order and remand this case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing.</p> <p>1091.  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.<br />COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY<br />VS.<br />AUBREY (JOHN), ET AL.<br />OPINION AFFIRMING<br />CLAYTON (PRESIDING JUDGE)<br />LAMBERT (CONCURS) AND HENRY (CONCURS)<br /><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2009-CA-000728.pdf" target="_self">2009-CA-000728-MR</a><br />TO BE PUBLISHED<br />FRANKLIN</p> <p>CLAYTON, JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals the Franklin Circuit Court's denial of its motion to dismiss on the grounds that its sovereign immunity bars actions against it in the Declaratory Judgment Act, KRS Chapter 418. After careful consideration, we affirm.</p> <p>* * *</p> <p>Even though the defense of sovereign immunity usually arises in tort<br />claims, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has also been applied in contract actions and has given the Commonwealth immunity from suits for breach of contract. University of Louisville v. Martin, 574 S.W.2d 676 (Ky. App. 1978); see also Foley Const. Co. v. Ward, 375 S.W.2d 392 (Ky. 1964). Furthermore, besides tort and contract claims, the Kentucky Supreme Court has held that Section 231 of the Kentucky Constitution and the doctrine of sovereign immunity foreclose against the state or one of its agencies "claims of violation of statutes." Ammerman v. Board of Educ., of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000). Finally, in two unpublished cases, our courts have acknowledged that equitable actions against the Commonwealth are barred by sovereign immunity. Whittenberg Construction Co. v. University of Kentucky, 2007 WL 3037721 (Ky. App. 2007)(2006-CA-002028-MR), and Harmon v. Com., Justice Cabinet, 2008 WL 4367833 (Ky. App. 2008)(2005-CA-002459-MR).</p> <p>* * *</p> <p>While no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity is contained in the DJA, its purposes and its legal history demonstrate an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity for the purposes of ascertaining whether a statute is constitutional. For example, in Philpot v. Patton, 837 S.W.2d 491, 493-94 (Ky. 1992), the Kentucky Supreme Court, relying on Rose, acknowledged that:<br />Rose held the General Assembly is not immune from suit in a declaratory judgment action to decide whether the General Assembly has failed to carry out a constitutional mandate and that members of the General Assembly are not immune from declaratory relief of this nature simply because they are acting in their official capacity. Rose held a declaratory judgment over constitutionality is not limited to deciding the constitutionality of statutes, but extends to failure to enact statutes complying with constitutional mandate.<br /><br />Based on case law and our own reasoning, we believe that the Commonwealth is not barred by sovereign immunity from participation in the DJA. Finally, Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589 (Ky. 2006), by appellant's own admission, did not overrule Rose. Therefore, Baker is not relevant to whether the Commonwealth may be sued under the DJA in an action to determine the constitutionality of a statute.</p> <p><strong>SOME NONPUBLISHED DECISIONS OF NOTE - TORTS, CIVIL PROCEDURE</strong></p> <p>1094.  MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. BATTERY.<br />SPARKS (ANN)<br />VS.<br />DOWNING (JOHN), ET AL.<br />OPINION AFFIRMING<br />LAMBERT (PRESIDING JUDGE)<br />DIXON (CONCURS) AND KELLER (CONCURS)<br /><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2009-CA-001349.pdf" target="_self">2009-CA-001349-MR</a><br />NOT TO BE PUBLISHED<br />WARREN</p> <p>LAMBERT, SENIOR JUDGE: Ann Sparks (Appellant) appeals from a jury verdict and final judgment of the Warren Circuit Court for John Downing, M.D. and Downing-McPeak Vision Center, P.S.C. (Appellees) in Appellant's medical malpractice and medical battery claims against Appellees. Appellant raises a number of evidentiary issues on appeal and also challenges the trial court's directed verdict in her battery claim prior to submission of the case to the jury. Upon review, we affirm.</p> <p>1096.  IMMUNITY FOR TESTING FOLLOWING ABUSE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT PREMATURE.<br />PEYTON (BRANDI)<br />VS.<br />NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE EXPERTS II, PLLC, ET AL.<br />OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING<br />LAMBERT (PRESIDING JUDGE)<br />COMBS (CONCURS) AND KELLER (CONCURS AND FILES SEPARATE OPINION)<br /><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2009-CA-001411.pdf" target="_self">2009-CA-001411-MR</a><br />TO BE PUBLISHED<br />JEFFERSON</p> <p>LAMBERT, JUDGE: Brandi Peyton appeals from a Jefferson Circuit Court order entered on May 21, 2009, which granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Neonatal Intensive Care Experts II, P.L.L.C., Ketan Mehta, M.D., and Norton Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Norton Suburban Hospital. Peyton filed lawsuits against Appellees, alleging gross negligence and malpractice in the generation and reading of a toxicology report rendered in conjunction with the labor and delivery of Peyton's son. Appellees reported incorrect toxicology results to Child Protective Services, who in turn removed Peyton's son from her care. The trial court determined that Appellees were immune from civil liability pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 620.030 and KRS 620.050. Finding a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.</p> <p>1100. ARBITRATION. NURSING HOME ABUSE.<br />HARLOW (ELISA M.)<br />VS.<br />BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.<br />OPINION AFFIRMING<br />MOORE (PRESIDING JUDGE)<br />KELLER (CONCURS) AND STUMBO (CONCURS)<br /><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2009-CA-001852.pdf" target="_self">2009-CA-001852-MR</a><br />NOT TO BE PUBLISHED<br />JEFFERSON</p> <p>MOORE, JUDGE: Elisa M. Harlow, Executrix for the Estate of Eugene Salesman, appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court's decision affirming an arbitration order dismissing arbitration in a nursing home abuse case. After careful review of the record, we affirm.</p> <p>Also:</p> <p>ORDERS GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH:<br /><br />STEPHEN LEEDS, INDIVIDUALLY 2008-CA-000110-MR MEADE<br />AND D/B/A ECONOMY SUITES<br />MOTEL; ET AL.<br />VS.<br />CITY OF MULDRAUGH, KENTUCKY<br />AND<br />STEPHEN LEEDS, INDIVIDUALLY 2009-CA-000427-MR MEADE<br />AND D/B/A ECONOMY SUITES<br />MOTEL; ET AL.<br />VS.<br />CITY OF MULDRAUGH, KENTUCKY<br />ENTERED 11/19/2010</p> <ul> </ul> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on December 15, 2010 (boomark / email).