Will T. Scott

This case involved a UPS pilot who received both voluntary workers' compensation temporary total disability benefits and Loss of License benefits under a collective bargaining agreement after a work-related back injury. UPS sought a full dollar-for-dollar credit under KRS 342.730(6) against its liability for past and future income benefits for all Loss of License payments made. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the statute permits credit only to the extent the Loss of License benefits overlap with or duplicate the workers' compensation benefits awarded, but does not authorize a complete offset against non-overlapping amounts or future benefits; it also clarified that benefits funded exclusively by the employer qualify for potential credit even if obtained through collective bargaining. The decision reversed the lower courts' conclusion that the benefits were not employer-funded solely because they were bargained for, while affirming the denial of a full credit.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether an employee who signed a release and waiver of claims in exchange for severance pay could later sue her former employer for disability discrimination and other statutory violations under Kentucky law. The trial court had dismissed the suit based on the release, but the Court of Appeals directed it to follow prior precedent allowing only a damages counterclaim for breach rather than dismissal. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that portion of the appellate decision, holding that a valid release extinguishes statutory civil rights claims and may be asserted as a defense to bar the action. The court relied on its earlier rulings that parties may knowingly waive such statutory rights and that releases generally discharge claims without fraud or duress. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on the release's validity.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Lawrence R. Carmichael, a licensed Kentucky attorney and elected Commonwealth’s Attorney, who was convicted in federal court of attempted extortion after attempting to obtain $50,000 to $100,000 from a pawnshop owner in exchange for not prosecuting him on illegal gambling charges. The Kentucky Bar Association charged him with violating professional conduct rules SCR 3.130-8.3(b) and (c), which prohibit criminal acts reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty or fitness and conduct involving dishonesty. Carmichael sought to introduce post-conviction evidence suggesting the victim had falsely testified, but the court ruled that a criminal conviction is conclusive proof of guilt and cannot be relitigated or used as mitigation in disciplinary proceedings. The court permanently disbarred Carmichael, concluding that his abuse of prosecutorial authority justified the sanction despite his lack of prior discipline.

criminal law

The case involved William Sloas, a state prisoner participating in Rowan County's Class D work program, who was injured when a tree cut by another inmate fell on him while clearing brush for a county road project. Sloas sued Rowan County, the jailer, and a deputy jailer for negligent supervision and training, seeking damages for the broken leg. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the county on sovereign immunity grounds and for the officials in their official capacities on absolute immunity, but reversed the Court of Appeals by granting the jailer and deputy qualified official immunity in their individual capacities. The core reasoning was that supervising the work program involved discretionary acts rather than ministerial duties, and there was no evidence of bad faith or violation of clearly established rights that would overcome the immunity.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved beneficiaries of a will who sued the drafting attorney for legal malpractice, alleging negligence in failing to advise the client about the surviving spouse's right to renounce the will and claim dower rights after a survivorship deed was executed, which allegedly reduced their inheritance by about $14,000. The trial court granted summary judgment to the attorney, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding circumstantial evidence created a factual issue. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the summary judgment, holding that the attorney met his burden by testifying he provided the advice and the plaintiffs offered no affirmative evidence beyond speculation to show a breach of the standard of care. The court emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate when the opposing party cannot produce evidence warranting a judgment in their favor.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved Jason Michael Nemes, a newly admitted Kentucky lawyer, who attended but arrived late to the second day of the required New Lawyer Skills Program due to a work-related luncheon with the Chief Justice, causing him to miss thirty minutes beyond the grace period and fail to complete the program within twelve months of admission under SCR 3.652(5). The Kentucky Bar Association CLE Commission petitioned the Supreme Court of Kentucky to suspend Nemes or impose other sanctions under SCR 3.652(9) for noncompliance. The court declined to suspend him, instead ordering a $300 fine, requiring him to make up the missed portion at the next available program, and barring him from seeking non-hardship time extensions for the following two education years. The core reasoning was that the rules mandated some sanction even for a de minimis infraction with extenuating circumstances tied to official court business.

procedure

The case involved Victor Hiatt, who was convicted of wanton murder and tampering with evidence and later filed a pro se RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Hiatt sought his entire trial file from his former attorney, who withheld portions labeled as work product, and the trial court denied access based on ethics opinions and lack of discovery in post-conviction proceedings. The Court of Appeals also denied Hiatt's petition for a writ of mandamus, finding no right to the materials and an adequate remedy on appeal. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that a writ was appropriate and that Hiatt was entitled to the full file, reasoning that a criminal defense attorney's duty of loyalty extends to post-conviction challenges and that the former client needs the complete file to pursue ineffective assistance claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between a county jailer and the Commonwealth of Kentucky over financial responsibility for providing psychotropic medications to indigent inmates held in county jails. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that county jails must cover these costs under KRS § 441.045(3), which requires them to pay for necessary medical, dental, and psychological care. The court reasoned that the statutes at issue could be harmonized to give effect to both, with no implied repeal of the earlier provision by the later-enacted KRS § 441.047, as the legislature did not explicitly express such intent and the later statute primarily addresses use of state facilities to control costs rather than shifting payment duties.

criminal law

The case involved Jamin Roberson, who was arrested for murder and first-degree burglary and entered a conditional guilty plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to police. After receiving Miranda warnings and requesting counsel, Roberson spoke with his mother at the police station, where she encouraged him to confess for potentially better treatment; he then waived his rights and provided a statement. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that the mother was not acting as a state agent or conduit for police interrogation, that her conversation did not constitute custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent under Miranda and related precedents, and that Roberson knowingly and voluntarily reinitiated communication with police. The court found no evidence of police coercion or a plan to circumvent Roberson's rights through his mother or pastor.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved David Lee Robinson's convictions in Grayson Circuit Court for manufacturing methamphetamine, first-degree trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, resulting in consecutive sentences totaling 30 years. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed all convictions based on sufficient evidence from a search warrant execution that uncovered drugs, paraphernalia, and manufacturing equipment at the residence where Robinson was present. However, the court reversed the sentencing order and remanded for a new sentencing phase because a prosecution witness provided incorrect testimony about the timing of statutory good time credits for parole eligibility, which the Commonwealth emphasized in closing arguments, violating due process under precedents like Napue v. Illinois as there was a reasonable likelihood it influenced the jury's maximum sentence recommendation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a negligence claim brought by the administrator of a deceased child's estate against the Cabinet for Families and Children, alleging that child protective services workers failed to properly investigate reports of abuse, which contributed to the child's death at the hands of her mother's boyfriend. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the Cabinet was immune from liability under the Board of Claims Act. The core reasoning was that the workers had satisfied all mandatory ministerial duties by interviewing required parties and filing a petition, but decisions about additional interviews, assessments of blame, and follow-up actions were discretionary functions protected by governmental immunity.

family lawtorts & liability

This case concerned whether evidence from a vehicle stop and subsequent search—prompted by a face-to-face citizen tip about a suspected drug transaction—should be suppressed. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the trial court properly denied the suppression motion and reversed the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that the uniform citation, which had been used and referenced during the hearing, could support the factual findings, and that the detailed, in-person citizen report provided sufficient articulable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio to justify the stop without additional corroboration required for anonymous tips. The defendant had pled guilty to drug and traffic offenses while preserving the suppression issue for appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet's enforcement actions against Kentec Coal Co. for failing to revise its surface mining permit after a third party began building a house on the permitted land, which led to a cessation order and penalties. Kentec challenged the requirements under KRS 350.0301(5) and 405 KAR 7:092 Section 6 that it prepay penalties before seeking administrative review and that treated corporate permittees differently from individuals. The Court of Appeals held these provisions unconstitutional under due process, equal protection, and Kentucky's ban on arbitrary state action. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed that ruling, finding the prepayment mandate and related waiver rules imposed unconstitutional burdens without adequate justification or equal treatment.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Rickey D. Leap, who was convicted after a retrial of fourth-degree assault, first-degree wanton endangerment, and first-degree persistent felony offender status, stemming from a severe beating of a victim. Following a mistrial on initial charges, the Commonwealth added the wanton endangerment count, leading the Court of Appeals to remand for a hearing on a possible presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court held that the presumption of vindictiveness established in cases like North Carolina v. Pearce does not apply in this pretrial setting after a mistrial, and the record showed no actual vindictive motive or manifest injustice in adding an appropriate charge to support the PFO count.

criminal lawprocedure