Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A long-term employee at an automotive manufacturing plant claimed she sustained cumulative trauma to her cervical and lumbar spine, both hands, both knees, and both shoulders from physically demanding and repetitive work over nearly twenty years. When the plant closed and she was laid off, she filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking permanent partial disability benefits. Conflicting medical evidence was presented: one doctor, retained by the claimant, attributed most of her injuries to her work, while two doctors, retained by the employer, found her conditions to be largely degenerative and unrelated to her employment. Ultimately, the administrative law judge found only her neck and bilateral shoulder conditions compensable and awarded her permanent partial disability benefits, enhanced by a statutory three-multiplier, based on a finding that she could not return to her pre-injury work.After the employer sought reconsideration, the administrative law judge clarified that only the shoulder and neck injuries were compensable but declined to further explain the basis for applying the three-multiplier. The employer appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the finding of work-related injury but vacated the award of the enhanced benefits. The Board held that the judge’s findings supporting the three-multiplier lacked adequate evidentiary support and remanded for more detailed findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky agreed with the lower courts. It held that the Board did not err or exceed its authority by vacating the enhanced award and remanding for additional findings. The Court determined that the administrative law judge’s application of the three-multiplier was clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion because it lacked sufficient support in the record. The Court therefore affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "RUSSELL V. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS" on Justia Law

Two business partners were traveling on Interstate 65 in Kentucky when their rental car hydroplaned during a heavy rainstorm, resulting in a crash that killed one partner and seriously injured the other. The decedent’s widow, on behalf of herself, her children, and her husband’s estate, along with the surviving partner, brought suit against the engineering firms responsible for the design of a highway-widening project completed years earlier. The plaintiffs alleged that the engineers negligently designed the widened highway, causing increased water pooling and a greater risk of hydroplaning in the area where the accident occurred.The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the engineers, holding that they were immune from suit as contractors for a governmental entity and that the claims were preempted by federal law because the design complied with required state and federal standards. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that contractors do not automatically share the immunity of the state, that government approval of the design did not insulate the engineers from potential liability for negligent design, and that the state negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that private engineering firms hired by a state agency are not entitled to the Commonwealth’s sovereign or derivative immunity simply by virtue of their contract. The court also found that summary judgment was inappropriate on the ground of the engineers’ work being “mandated” by the government because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the design was required or whether the engineers exercised independent judgment. Finally, the court held that Kentucky’s negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law, as the state claims did not impose standards more stringent than those required by federal regulations. View "HMB PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, INC. V. IVES" on Justia Law

A certified nursing assistant employed by a home health provider sustained injuries to her right shoulder and lower back during the course of her employment. She received medical treatment from several providers and was paid mileage reimbursements for traveling between patient homes. Following her injuries, the employer’s insurance carrier denied further payment of temporary disability and medical benefits, including an outstanding medical bill, and ultimately terminated her employment. The worker secured new employment at a higher wage and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming entitlement to disability benefits and payment of the disputed medical bill. The employer denied liability.The Administrative Law Judge found that the worker had a compensable lower back injury with a 12% impairment rating, entitling her to temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, but excluded mileage reimbursements from her average weekly wage and denied payment for the outstanding medical bill based on the provider’s failure to submit it within the statutory 45-day deadline. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements and dismissed the issue of the unpaid medical bill as moot after the employer voluntarily paid it during the appeal. The Court of Appeals also rejected a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, deeming it unauthorized.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements from the wage calculation, holding such payments were reimbursements for actual expenses and not “wages.” The Court reversed the dismissal of the medical bill claim as moot, applying the “voluntary cessation” exception, and held that denial of compensability constitutes reasonable grounds to excuse noncompliance with the 45-day rule for submitting medical bills. The Court also found the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the amicus motion. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "HARRIS V. MERCY HOME HEALTH" on Justia Law

Jeremy Starr, a delivery driver for Graybar Electric, claimed workers’ compensation for a back injury sustained in March 2018 while unloading pipes. Starr had a history of lumbar issues stemming from a 2004 motor vehicle accident, including a disc herniation documented by MRI. After his workplace injury, Starr underwent further imaging and treatment, ultimately receiving lumbar fusion surgery in 2022. Medical opinions diverged: some attributed the need for surgery to degenerative changes originating from the earlier accident, while others suggested the work injury was a significant cause. Starr provided additional evidence, including new medical evaluations and a deposition from his surgeon, to argue the surgery was compensable.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found Starr suffered only a lumbar strain from the workplace incident and ruled the fusion surgery was not work-related, thus non-compensable. The ALJ awarded temporary total disability benefits for a limited period and later amended the award upon reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings, concluding that any factual misstatement was not so unreasonable as to compel a different result and that new evidence submitted by Starr did not meet the standard for “newly-discovered evidence,” having been available with due diligence.The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ALJ should have considered Starr’s additional evidence and correcting factual misstatements, reasoning that interlocutory orders are not final and that contested issues remained open for adjudication. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court held that under Bowerman v. Black Equipment Co., dispositive interlocutory factual findings cannot be reversed in a subsequent final opinion absent newly-discovered evidence, fraud, or mistake. The Court found no gross injustice from the ALJ’s factual misstatement and determined the additional evidence was merely cumulative and not newly discovered. View "GRAYBAR ELECTRIC V. STARR" on Justia Law

A patient was admitted to a hospital for liver disease and, while in an altered mental state, fell while accompanied by a caregiver. She suffered a fractured hip, requiring surgery, and was later discharged. The patient filed a negligence lawsuit against the hospital, alleging a failure to prevent or appropriately respond to her fall. During discovery, she requested all incident reports related to her fall. The hospital identified an Incident Report and a Root Cause Analysis but refused to produce them, invoking federal and state privileges that protect certain internal analyses and reports of medical errors.The McCracken Circuit Court ordered the hospital to produce the Incident Report and to provide the Root Cause Analysis with redactions for portions covered by federal privilege. The trial court found that the Incident Report and parts of the Root Cause Analysis contained factual information not otherwise available in the patient's medical records and ruled that such information should be discoverable. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's order after the hospital sought a writ of prohibition. It held that the Incident Report was not privileged under federal or state law but concluded the Root Cause Analysis was fully protected by federal privilege, even its factual portions, and thus could not be disclosed.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act privilege protected the entire Root Cause Analysis from disclosure, with no exception for factual information within the document. However, it held that the Incident Report was not protected by either the federal or state privileges because it was generated in compliance with regulatory obligations, not as part of the hospital's privileged peer review or patient safety evaluation system. As a result, the Incident Report was discoverable, while the Root Cause Analysis was not. View "BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. V. KITCHEN" on Justia Law

An elderly woman with significant medical issues, including heart and lung conditions, was a resident at a nursing home from 2018 until her death in December 2020. In late November 2020, she tested positive for COVID-19 and was transferred to a COVID unit within the facility. On December 3, 2020, she was found unresponsive by staff but did not receive immediate medical intervention for nearly five hours. She was eventually transported to a hospital, where she died the same day from acute respiratory distress. Her medical records indicated care being provided after her death, raising questions about record accuracy. Her estate administrator brought suit against the nursing home and related parties, alleging negligence, medical negligence, wrongful death, and other claims, asserting that her death resulted from neglect rather than COVID-19 itself.The case was first reviewed by the Graves Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that they were immune under Kentucky’s COVID-19 immunity statute (KRS 39A.275). The court found that the decedent died from COVID-19 as evidenced by her death certificate and that no gross negligence had been sufficiently shown. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, reasoning that immunity applied under the statute because COVID-19 was a factor and that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of gross negligence.Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the lower courts’ decisions. It held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether the woman's injuries and death were actually caused by COVID-19 or by the nursing home's alleged neglect. The Court clarified that the immunity statute requires a causal connection between the harm and COVID-19, and does not automatically apply to all injuries during the emergency period. The case was remanded for additional proceedings and further discovery. View "JACKSON V. MAYFIELD KY OPCO, LLC" on Justia Law

A mechanical maintenance technician employed at a steel manufacturing facility contracted COVID-19 in August 2021, which ultimately led to his death following a double lung transplant and subsequent infection. The employee worked closely with a single partner during long shifts, and both were unvaccinated, sometimes failing to comply with company mask policies. The employee’s family and estate filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging that his work conditions placed him at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than the general public. Evidence included testimony about his work environment, social activities, and the timeline of symptom onset.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the claim and found that the estate failed to prove the employee’s exposure to COVID-19 at work was greater than that of the general public, or that his work increased his risk of contracting or exacerbating the disease. The ALJ dismissed the claim, concluding that the statutory requirements for an occupational disease under Kentucky law were not met. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings, as did the Kentucky Court of Appeals, both determining that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and that the ALJ had not misapplied the law.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that, for a communicable disease like COVID-19 to be compensable under workers’ compensation, the claimant must prove the disease was work-related, that the nature of the employment increased the risk of contracting the disease compared to the general public, and that the injury exceeded the normal effects of such a disease. The Court found the estate did not meet its burden of proof on the threshold issue of work-related causation and affirmed the dismissal of the claim. View "ESTATE OF PERKINS V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS" on Justia Law

An employee worked for over sixteen years as a shuttle car operator for a coal company, primarily in Kentucky, where he was regularly exposed to hazardous noise. After the Kentucky mine closed, he continued working for the same employer in Alabama for nine months before retiring. The employee began experiencing hearing difficulties before leaving Kentucky, and was later diagnosed with work-related hearing loss. He filed a workers’ compensation claim in Kentucky, listing his last day of work in Kentucky as the date of last exposure.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the employee’s claim for coal workers’ pneumoconiosis but granted his hearing loss claim, finding that the injury occurred on his last day working in Kentucky. The ALJ relied on medical testimony indicating that the short period of exposure in Alabama was inconsequential to the hearing loss, and applied Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 342.7305(4), which presumes liability for the employer with whom the employee was last injuriously exposed to hazardous noise for at least one year. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, concluding that Kentucky had jurisdiction and that the injury manifested while the employee was still working in Kentucky. The Kentucky Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that extraterritorial coverage statutes did not apply because the injury occurred in Kentucky.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that, under the amended KRS 342.7305(4), the date of injury for liability purposes is when the employee was last injuriously exposed to hazardous noise for at least one year with the employer, here in Kentucky. The Court concluded that Kentucky had jurisdiction over the claim and that the insurer covering the employer on that date was liable. View "KENTUCKY EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE V. CLAS COAL CO., INC." on Justia Law

A retired teacher who continued to work as a substitute until 2014 filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2015, alleging he developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during his employment with a county school board. Initially, he identified his last exposure as occurring during his full-time employment, which ended in 2003, and named Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance (KEMI) as the insurer. Later, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the last injurious exposure actually occurred in 2014, when the teacher stopped substitute teaching, which would make Encova Mutual Insurance Group the responsible carrier for the claim.After the ALJ’s finding, KEMI sought to have Encova certified as the responsible insurer, but the ALJ denied the motion as untimely and questioned his authority to resolve the issue. The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) affirmed the denial, but on the ground that neither KEMI nor Encova had standing, as neither had been formally joined as parties. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ALJ and WCB had the authority and obligation under the Workers’ Compensation Act to determine and certify the proper insurance carrier, even after a change in the last date of exposure.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that the ALJ and WCB have statutory authority to determine which insurer is responsible for payment of benefits when the last date of injurious exposure changes, and that insurers have standing to participate in such proceedings. The Court further held that the Act binds the insurer on the risk at the time of last exposure, regardless of notice or formal joinder, and that equitable defenses such as laches or estoppel do not bar certification in these circumstances. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "ENCOVA MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP V. HALL" on Justia Law

A Kentucky resident purchased a firearm from a local pawn shop and, shortly after, suffered severe injuries when the gun allegedly discharged unexpectedly while the safety was engaged. The gun had been manufactured by a Utah-based company, which sold it to a Texas distributor. The distributor then sold the firearm to a Kentucky merchant, and it eventually reached the plaintiff through a Kentucky pawn shop. The injured party filed a products liability lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court against both the manufacturer and the pawn shop, alleging the manufacturer’s product caused his injuries.The Fayette Circuit Court initially held the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in abeyance to allow for limited discovery. However, the manufacturer failed to timely respond to discovery requests, only providing responses after being compelled by court order and after significant delay. Despite this, the trial court granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, finding that the manufacturer had not purposefully availed itself of doing business in Kentucky and that exercising personal jurisdiction would not comport with due process. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that due process would be offended, though it found the manufacturer fell within the state’s long-arm statute due to deriving substantial revenue from Kentucky sales.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and held that the evidence was sufficient to show the manufacturer derived substantial revenue from sales in Kentucky and that the plaintiff’s claims arose from those sales, thus satisfying the long-arm statute. However, the Court determined that the manufacturer’s failure to comply with discovery obligations deprived the plaintiff of an adequate opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The Court reversed the dismissal in part and remanded the case to the Fayette Circuit Court, instructing it to allow the plaintiff ample opportunity to complete jurisdictional discovery before ruling on personal jurisdiction. View "BRAUN V. BEARMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC" on Justia Law