Six published decisions – nursing home arbitration case reconsidered at Clark and Wellner Decisions from SCOTUS; relation back doctrine and amended pleadings; affirmed denial of PIP claim by insurance company; pro se dismissal affirmed for failure to appear at trial; separation of witness rule not apply between deposition and trial; probation revocation affirmed.
SIX PUBLISHED DECISIONS.
678. GGNSC FRANKFORT, LLC, D/B/A GOLDEN LIVING CENTER – FRANKFORT ET AL. VS. RICHARDSON, (JAMES) AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FANNIE H. LYON,
Arbitration. Power of Attorney. Nursing Homes.
This matter is before this Court on remand pursuant to an order of the Kentucky Supreme Court instructing this Court to reconsider its prior opinion in light of Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark,____
680. SHACKELTON (TONY) VS. ESTATE OF JOHN P. FRIES, ET AL.
Amended Pleadings. Relation Back Doctrine
681. JOINER (CHRISTOPHER) VS. KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
PIP.
The question under review is whether the Jefferson Circuit Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and dismissing Christopher Joiner’s claim that Farm Bureau violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA) by failing to pay basic reparations benefits (BRB).1 We affirm.
689. MURPHY (PATRICK) VS. WEBER (BRYAN)
In this dispute between a tenant and landlord, Patrick Murphy, proceeding pro se, has appealed from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s August 3, 2017, order dismissing his action against Bryan Weber without prejudice due to his failure to appear for the jury trial. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
690. SKARUPA (CARLA) VS. OWENSBORO HEALTH
Carla Skarupa (Skarupa) appeals from a judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court confirming a jury verdict in favor of Owensboro Health Healthpark and Owensboro Health Medical Group, Inc (collectively “Owensboro Health”), and Thomas B. Smith, LMT. Skarupa argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to exclude the testimony of Owensboro Health’s experts because they had previously reviewed the deposition testimony of her expert witnesses. We conclude that the separation-of-witnesses rule set out in KRE1 615 does not apply between deposition and trial, nor can it apply to conduct occurring before the motion is made. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying the motion to exclude the witnesses or by allowing the matter to
693. NEW (JIMMY DALE) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Jimmy Dale New appeals from an August 2018 order of the Perry Circuit Court revoking his probation. We affirm.
MINUTES WITH LINKS TO FULL TEXT OF ALL DECISIONS.