The Kentucky Court of Appeals announced 17 decisions on Oct. 3, 2014, with two opinions designated to be published – UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, INC. (Open Records. Is University Medical Center a public agency and/or exempt under KRS 61.878?); and KENTUCKY EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISION VS. FELICIA WOOTEN (Ethics. Did PVA improperly use office for financial gain by hiring family members in violation of KRS 11A.020(1)(c)? No.).
Constitution Square in Danville, Historic Site’s Buildings (Photo by Michael Stevens)
The two published decisions are below. Click on the ‘hot link’ for the case name to see entire PDF decision posted at AOC.
881. Open Records. Is University Medical Center a public agency and/or exempt under KRS 61.878?
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, INC.
COA, Published 10/3/2014; Opinion by Judge Nickell Affirming and Remanding to Jefferson Cir. Ct.
NICKELL, JUDGE: The question before us is whether University Medical Center, Inc. (“UMC”)—operator of University of Louisville Hospital and related facilities (“ULH”)1—is a public agency within the scope of Kentucky’s Open Records Act (“Act”).2 Two paths have been suggested to conclude UMC is a public agency. We may follow the lead of the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) and hold UMC is a public agency under KRS 61.870(1)(j) because it was “established, created, and controlled by a public agency[.]” Or, we may follow the Jefferson Circuit Court’s lead and hold UMC is a public agency under KRS 61.870(1)(i) because “the majority of its governing body is appointed by a public agency[.]” In contrast, UMC maintains it is a private entity, and therefore, not subject to the Act, because it was created by two private individuals representing two private healthcare providers, and the majority of its Board of Directors is elected, not appointed by anyone. For the reasons that follow, we reject the OAG’s analysis, affirm the circuit court’s holding, and remand to the circuit court for determination of whether the requested records are otherwise exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878.
883. Ethics. Did PVA improperly use office for financial gain by hiring family members in violation of KRS 11A.020(1)(c)? No.
KENTUCKY EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISION VS. FELICIA WOOTEN
COA, Published 10/3/2014; Opinion by PJ Stumbo affirming Franklin Cir. Ct.
STUMBO, JUDGE: Kentucky Executive Branch Ethics Commission (“the Commission”) appeals from two Orders of the Franklin Circuit Court. Those Orders reversed two Final Orders of the Commission holding that several Property Valuation Administrators improperly used their official positions or offices to obtain financial gain for their family members in violation of KRS 11A.020(1)(c). As a basis for the reversals, Judges Phillip J. Shepherd and Thomas D. Wingate independently determined that KRS 11A.020(1)(c) does not bar Property Valuation Administrators from hiring or promoting family members. In this consolidated appeal, we conclude that KRS 11A.020(1)(c) cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit Property Valuation Administrators from promoting and hiring family members. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Orders on appeal.
“Continue reading” for the Tort Report and a complete copy of this week’s minutes of ALL decisions with links to their full text.
The Tort Report – Selected decisions this week on tort, insurance and civil law (None this week).
[gview file=”https://kycourtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MNT10032014.pdf”]
