GARDNER V. SKIBA
CIVIL PROCEDURE - RES JUDICATA (remanding of earlier judgment)
2005-CA-000133
PUBLISHED
REVERSING AND REMANDING (JOHNSON)
DATE: 3/10/2006
A jury found against appellant in a 1998 case, but that judgment was subsequently reversed and remanded by the CAs. Appellant brought current action that appellees argued was precluded by res judicata, in that it concerned same facts/parties, etc. CAs noted that res judicata applies when there has been a final judgment of a matter on the merits. However, should that final judgment be reversed on direct appeal, it is treated as though it never existed, and res judicata will not have a preclusive effect. The appellees also argued the appellant could not bring the second action because he impermissibly split his cause of action; however, this tenet is a subsidiary of the res judicata doctrine, and for it to apply, all of the elements of res judicata, including that pesky final judgment, must be present. Again, the CAs held that since the "final judgment" at issue here had been reversed, it could not be used as a basis to assert the appellant had improperly split his cause of action. It noted that the rule against splitting causes of action is not so broad as to foreclose all possible or potential claims against any known potential defendant not brought within the first litigation. The CAs refused to consider the appellees' final argument that appellee's action is barred because he cannot amend his complaint in the prior litigation or from consolidating the action with the prior litigation, finding the appellant had attempted to do neither of those things, thus rendering the arguments unripe for adjudication.
WILLIAMSON V. SCHNEIDER
CIVIL PROCEDURE - Post Earle v. Cobb and Party Identification
2004-CA-001704
PUBLISHED
REVERSING AND REMANDING (JOHNSON W/COMBS FILING CONCURRING OPINION)
DATE: 3/10/2006
CA reverses jury verdict for doctor and clinic in medmal case citing Earle v. Cobb because judge ordered clinic, a party defendant, not to be identified at trial.
WHITE V. PAYNE
GOVERNMENT - License from ABC
2004-CA-002515
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING (MINTON)
DATE: 3/10/2006
Found no error in decision by circuit court ordering the ABC to grant a farm winery license. Scope of review is limited to determining whether the circuit court clearly erred.
JAGO V. SPECIAL NEEDS HOME HEALTH CARE
SETTLEMENTS AND RELEASES - CR 60.02 and evidentiary hearing whether attorney had authority to enter settlement
2004-CA-002569
PUBLISHED
VACATING AND REMANDING (TACKETT)
DATE: 3/10/2006
Home health care provider brought debt collection action against a patient to recover the cost of home health medical services provided to patient. The circuit court entered an agreed judgment based on a settlement between the parties and signed by the attorneys. Patient claimed attorney did not have the authority and appealed from the denial of his motion for relief from the agreed judgment. COA held due process required that client/patient be given a CR 60.02 hearing on issue of whether patient's attorney exceeded his authority when he entered into binding settlement agreement.
The leading cases on settlement authority, Clark v. Burden, 917 S.W.2d 574 (Ky.1996), and recently Ford v. Beasley, 148 S.W.3d 808 (Ky.App.2004), both involved a decision made after an evidentiary hearing was conducted by the circuit court. The law is clear that express client authority must be had to enter into a settlement agreement, and apparent authority is insufficient. Where no express authority to settle exists, a settlement cannot bind the client.
REECE V. DIXIE WAREHOUSE & CARTAGE CO.
WORKERS COMPENSATION - Subrogation and Credit
2004-CA-000652
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING (HENRY)
DATE: 3/10/2006
This case involved a slip and fall at Dixie Warehouse by Reece who was not an employee of Dixie. Reece received workers compensation benefits and sued Dixie Warehouse for her injuries. The jury returned a favorable verdict. On the workers compensation subrogation claim for benefits paid to Reece, the Trial court credited claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits award only to her lost wages, rather than the entire judgment obtained against the third party tortfeasor (Dixie). COA affirmed.
JONES V. BRASCH-BARRY GENERAL CONTRACTORS
WORKERS COMPENSATION - Substantial Evidence
2004-CA-000730
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING (MINTON)
DATE: 3/10/2006
The Board reversed the ALJ in an unusual instance of finding that a doctor's opinion did not constitute substantial evidence on which to base the ALJ decision. In this case the doctor stated that he did not follow the AMA Guide precisely and instead placed the claimant in a higher category of impairment. The Board held that this could not constitute substantial evidence and reversed the ALJ's opinion. Ordinarily, a doctor's testimony about his opinion of the AMA Guide category would prevent the appellate courts from questioning the ALJ's decision.
WILLIAMS V. FEI INSTALLATION
WORKERS COMPENSATION - Future Medical Benefits
2005-CA-000653
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING IN PART,
REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING (JOHNSON)
DATE: 3/10/2006
The claimant suffered an injury to his elbow which caused numbness in his fingers. The ALJ found that there was no permanent impairment under the AMA Guides, and refused to award expenses for medical treatment of the injury in the future. The Board affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed on that issue, finding that medical treatment must be awarded if the ALJ finds that there was a work related injury. This is a hot issue right now, as insurance companies are pushing to close out future liability for work related injuries. A bill was introduced in the current legislative session to limit payment of medical expenses to the 425 week period for payment of medicals, which appears to be lost in committee.
Thanks to Scott Byrd, Patrick Bouldin, John Hamlet, Cherry Henault, Sam Hinkle, Chad Kessinger, Stephen Keller, J. Russell Lloyd, Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes , Peter Naake, Bryan Pierce, Alma Puissegur, Paul Schurman, Michael Stevens and James Worthington for their efforts in digesting Kentucky's PUBLISHED appellate decisions.
Comments