The Court of Appeals posted 23 decisions this week, numbered 750 through 772 with 3 cases designated for publication.

Two interesting tort cases with Houchens v. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) holding in a class action suit that GEICO’s denial of PIP benefits based upon a records review was not a sufficient basis for denial, and Azmat v Dr. George Bauer where mother/next friend who had no claim of her own who had filed medical negligence claim for child could not file pleadings in “pro se” case which was not really a pro se case.  My assumption is the actions of next friend will not ultimately harm the claims of the minor whose claims are tolled until majority.

All decisions regardless of publication are posted and can be read, but just cannot be cited as legal authority.    You will find the complete list of this weeks decisions below with number, names of parties, case number, lower court (eg., county), etc. with a hot link to the full text of the decision.  Please note that you will have to check Case Information for each decision for finality, amendments, rehearing, or other matters including motions for discretionary review (MDR) filed with the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Published Court of Appeals Decisions
Here are the links to the full text of each published case for this week (9/9/2016) with a short synopsis or topic listed for each.

759.  PIP Benefits.  Denial.  Medical review and medical examinations.
Houchens v. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO)
Court of Appeals Published Opinion REVERSING and REMANDING Jefferson Cir Ct.  summary judgment in favor of GEICO’s denial of PIP benefits based only upon a medical review of the records

The sole issue on appeal is whether a reparations obligor in Kentucky is entitled to utilize “paper reviews,” which are not tendered to nor reviewed by a court, as the sole basis for terminating or denying an insured’s no-fault benefits. Appellants contend that the only medical review expressly sanctioned by Kentucky’s MVRA is contained in KRS 304.39-270 and requires court oversight. GEICO, on the other hand, argues that the statutory language is purely permissive in nature, and that it has the discretion whether to utilize the statutory procedure or to seek its own paper review of an insured’s medical records.

The trial court below agreed with GEICO that the phrase “may petition the court” means that a reparations obligor may, but is not required, to seek a court order for an independent medical exam (“IME”) prior to terminating or denying benefits. We disagree and conclude that such interpretation violates both the intent and spirit of Kentucky’s MVRA.

768.  Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Cowing v. Commare
Court of Appeals Published Opinion  AFFIRMING Fayette Cir Ct.  summary judgment dismissing claims

Cowing had alleged violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act on the part of Lockheed Martin Corporation and Andy Commare, one of Lockheed’s managing agents. Cowing contends that the trial court erred by concluding that his claim is barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. After our review, we affirm.

772.  Criminal Law.  Motion to suppress denial affirmed on appeal
Eddington v. Commonwealth of Kentucky 
Court of Appeals Published Opinion AFFIRMING Madison Cir Ct denial of suppression motion

Selected Non-Published Decisions Dealing with tort, insurance and civil procedure:

764.  Next friend and practice of law filing pleadings on behalf of minor
Azmat v Dr. George Bauer
Court of Appeals Published Opinion AFFIRMING Hardin Cir Ct dismissal of claim for failure meet disclosure
This is an interesting case in which mother filed suit on behalf of claim solely for minor for medical negligence in child’s birth.  She hired an attorney, sued the doctor, but attorney withdrew on grounds of irreconcilable differences  Defendant’s sought order prohibiting next friend and mother from filing pleadings in her own name on behalf of minor.  Trial court struck those unauthorized pleading and later dismissed claim. COA affirmed.

[gview file=”https://kycourtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/MNT09092016.pdf”]