| Barnes v. Honorable Julie Goodman |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0088-MR Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Nickell Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate the denial of her motion to stay discovery in a wrongful death/negligence action, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that denial of the stay would cause her great and irreparable harm, and therefore, a writ was unavailable to her. The wrongful death/negligence action named as defendants Petitioner, her former employer and others. Petitioner sought to stay discovery in the action until a parallel criminal case against her alone was completed. In this action seeking writ relief Petitioner sought to stay all civil discovery until her indictment was resolved so that she could freely exercise her constitutional right to remain silent. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the requested writ. |
| |
| Fisher v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0738-MR Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting Defendant of complicity to murder and tampering with physical evidence, holding the trial court did not err in admitting unreacted out-of-court statements in which Defendant's co-defendant incriminated herself and Defendant to a cellmate who testified at trial. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in ruling that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the co-defendant's out-of-court statements to her cellmate were not testimonial and sufficient corroboration otherwise supported the admissibility of the statements; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a jail phone call of Defendant; and (3) the Commonwealth's Attorney improperly questioned a witness, but the error did not render Defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. |
| |
| Britt v. University of Louisville |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0399-DG Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Lambert Areas of Law: Contracts |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's denial of summary judgment in favor of the University of Louisville in this breach of contract action, holding that Plaintiff brought her action outside of the one-year period following the date of completion of her last written contract. After Plaintiff's employment at the University ended she brought this action alleging that the University breached its employment contract with her. The University moved for summary judgment, asserting that governmental immunity shielded it from liability. The circuit court denied the motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the University was shielded from liability due to governmental immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Plaintiff's claim was filed outside of the limitations period of Ky. Rev. Stat. 45A.260. |
| |
| Davis v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0530-MR Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Michelle M. Keller Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of theft of mail matter and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a lesser jury instruction on theft by unlawful taking under $500; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Batson challenge to the commonwealth's strike of Juror $4070; (4) any error in the admission of victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of Defendant's trial did not amount to reversible error; and (5) a clerical error in Defendant's judgment did not rise to the level of palpable error. |
| |
| A.G. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0273-DGE Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Lambert Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the judgment of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to S.A.A., his now sixteen-year-old son, holding that the court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Much of the case against Father was based upon his failure successfully to complete an Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) home study. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment terminating Father's parental rights, holding (1) an ICPC home study shall not be required for a noncustodial parent who is not the subject of allegations or findings of child abuse or neglect pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 615.030; and (2) the trial court erred in terminating Father's parental rights. |
| |
| R.M. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0205-DGE Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order and judgment of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their two boys, holding that the court of appeals did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) substantial evidence of abuse and neglect proved that termination was in the children's best interests; (2) the State's Cabinet for Health and Family Services proved it made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (3) admission and consideration of abuse of other children within the extended family did not unfairly prejudice Mother and Father. |
| |
| Anderson v. Mountain Comprehensive Health Corp. |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0133-WC Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Michelle M. Keller Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing Appellant's workers' compensation claim upon finding that Appellant failed to provide reasonable notice of her injury to her employer, holding that the ALJ applied the incorrect provision of Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.185(1). Appellant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that she sustained cumulative trauma injuries to her neck, back, and hands while working as a nurse. Applying the notice provisions of section 342.185(1), the ALJ found that Appellant's delay of almost two years from the original manifestation date was untimely. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ALJ erred in applying section 342.185(1) to Plaintiff's claim because, as of July 14, 2018, the notice provisions of section 342.185(1) do not apply to cumulative trauma injuries; and (2) under section 341.285(3), which specifically addresses a claimant's notice requirements for cumulative trauma injuries, Appellant's claim was timely. |
| |
| Maysey v. Express Services, Inc. |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0132-WC Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Hughes Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board upholding the order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying Plaintiff a thirty percent enhancement of benefits from his employer, Defendant, as a result of workplace safety violations, holding that the safety-violation benefit enhancement did not apply. Plaintiff sustained a serious work-related injury while employed by Defendant, a temporary staffing company. At issue before the ALJ was whether Plaintiff was entitled to the thirty percent enhancement under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.165(1) for Defendant's alleged workplace violations. The ALJ denied enhanced benefits. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not liable for section 342.165's enhancement of benefits because extending liability for the safety violations at the facility where Defendant sustained his injuries to Defendant pursuant to the "intentional failure" standard in section 342.165(1) was contrary to the current statute and caselaw. |
| |
| Viwin Tech Windows & Doors, Inc. v. Ivey |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0370-WC Opinion Date: March 25, 2021 Judge: Vanmeter Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court remanded this case to the Workers' Compensation Board, holding that Mark Ivey's pre-employment lower back disc herniation and two surgeries required an impairment rating to be carved out of his permanent partial disability rating for which his employer, ViWin Tech, would be responsible. An ALJ assigned a whole-person impairment of twenty-eight percent and rejected a carve-out for a pre-existing injury. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on a plain reading of the relevant statutes and the AMA Guides, the ALJ erred in concluding that a carve-out was unwarranted. |
| |
