Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2011, the Bullitt County Board of Health enacted a Regulation that prohibited tobacco smoke in all enclosed public places, among other places, and placed additional restrictions regarding tobacco use on smoking-regulated businesses and regulated places. Appellants filed a petition for declaration of rights against the Board, arguing that the Board had exceeded its authority by enacting a substantive law without proper enabling legislation. The trial court agreed with Appellants and held that the Regulation was invalid. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the Regulation was valid and a proper exercise of the Board’s statutory authority. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the Resolution, and therefore, the Resolution was invalid and unenforceable. View "Bullitt Fiscal Court v. Bullitt County Bd. of Health" on Justia Law

The City of Lebanon sought to annex several hundred acres of nearby property. The owners of the property subject to the annexation, including Appellees, filed a lawsuit against the City to invalidate the annexation ordinance. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City, by intentionally manipulating the annexation boundaries to guarantee a successful annexation, violated Appellees’ constitutional rights. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the boundaries of territory to be annexed must be “natural or regular” and that the boundaries of the proposed annexation in this case did not meet this standard. The Supreme Court reversed and declared the annexation valid, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in applying a “natural or regular” standard; and (2) the City’s annexation fully complied the the statutory requirements and did not violate Appellees’ constitutional rights. View "City of Lebanon v. Goodin" on Justia Law

Mary Bell was a disabled person who drew Social Security Insurance benefits and participated in a federally-funded, community-based program operated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. When Thomas Bell, Mary’s father, retired and began to draw his Social Security benefits, Mary became eligible for Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance. Consequently, Mary was charged $60 per month for her continued program participation. Thomas filed an administrative appeal on Mary’s behalf. The matter ultimately reached the circuit court, which held that Mary could not be charged to participate in the program. Thereafter, the circuit court (1) awarded attorney’s fees against the Cabinet due to the Cabinet’s “egregious government behavior,” and (2) ordered the Cabinet to disclose the personal information of all other participants in the program. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred by (1) ordering the payment of attorney’s fees solely for egregious conduct without statutory authorization or a contract providing for such fees; and (2) ordering the disclosure of records of all persons participating in the program without the other persons having filed claims and no class action being certified. View "Bell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, the Kentucky Department of Revenue, and eight horse Kentucky racing associations that wished to expand their businesses to include wagering upon historical horse racing. Appellants filed an action for a declaration of rights concerning the operation of mechanical and electronic devices for wagering on previously run horse races, so-called “historical horse racing.” The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which held (1) the Commission has the statutory authority to license and regulate the operation of pari-mutuel wagering on historic horse racing; (2) under the present statutory scheme, the Department does not have the authority to tax the wagering upon historical horse races; and (3) whether the licensed operation of wagering on historic horse racing violates the gambling provisions of the Kentucky Penal Code is an issue that depends upon facts not in the record, therefore requiring further proceedings in the circuit court. View "Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Trust Found. of Ky." on Justia Law

Angela Frye filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer alleging that in 2008 she suffered a work-related injury. The administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded Frye benefits related to the injury. In 2009, after the final hearing in the 2008 claim but before the ALJ took that claim under submission or rendered an opinion, Frye allegedly suffered a second work-related injury. In 2010, Frye filed a claim related to the 2009 accident. The ALJ dismissed the 2010 claim, concluding that Frye was required by Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.270(1) to file her claim for benefits related to the 2009 accident and join it to her pending 2008 claim, which she failed to do. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding that a claim is no longer pending for section 342,270(1) purposes after the date of the final hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in this case and under these facts, Frye's first injury claim was not pending between the date of the hearing and the date the ALJ rendered his opinion regarding that claim. Remanded. View "Saint Joseph Hosp. v. Frye" on Justia Law

A writer for the Kentucky New Era, Inc., a newspaper serving the city of Hopkinsville and the neighboring area, requested records from the Hopkinsville City Clerk, including copies of arrest citations and police incident reports involving stalking, harassment, or terroristic threatening. The City Clerk withheld some records and redacted from others certain types of personal data. The City then initiated an action essentially seeking a declaration that its decisions to withhold and to redact records did not violate the Kentucky Open Records Act (ORA). The circuit court ultimately ruled that the City's redactions of social security and driver's license numbers, of home addresses, and of telephone numbers comported with the ORA. The court of appeals upheld the redactions and held that the City had the right to redact the names of all juveniles in the records. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly applied the ORA's privacy exemption in concluding that the redactions at issue in this case were in accordance with the ORA. View "Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville" on Justia Law

In Haydon Bridge I, the Supreme Court held that provisions of the 2000-2002 and 2002-2004 budget bills, which suspended annual General Fund appropriations to the Benefit Reserve Fund (BRF) were constitutional but that other provisions of the bills ordering funds transferred from the BRF to the General Fund were unconstitutional. On remand, the trial court granted permanent prospective relief prohibiting the future transfer of funds from the BRF to the General Fund or other state agencies and ordered retroactive injunctive relief requiring the Governor and State Budget Director (collectively, "the Governor") to return monies that had been transferred from the BRF to the General Fund from 2000 to 2010. The court's order addressed, among other things, transfers from the part of the BRF known as the Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund. The Governor appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the retroactive injunctive relief ordered by the trial court violated sovereign immunity and the separation of powers; (2) there was no basis for the trial court's award of attorneys' fees; and (3) because Plaintiffs had no standing with regard to the Pneumoconiosis Fund, the trial court should not have enjoined transfers from that Fund based on a request from Plaintiffs. View "Beshear v. Haydon Bridge Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant was working for Employer when she was seriously injured. Claimant, a janitor, became trapped in a stalled elevator and fell several stories down the shaft when Employer's security staff attempted to rescue her. An administrative law judge (ALJ) enhanced Claimant's worker's compensation award based on Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.165(1), which penalizes an employer for an intentional failure to follow a safety protocol. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Claimant was not entitled to an award enhancement because there must be a finding that Employer "ignored or willfully overlooked a safety hazard that was reasonably foreseeable." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in order to warrant enhancement under section 342.165(1), the employer must be found to have intentionally disregarded a safety hazard that even a lay person would recognize as likely to cause serious physical harm; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's finding that Employer intentionally disregarded a safety hazard in this case. View "Hornback v. Hardin Memorial Hosp." on Justia Law

Jason Morris worked for Owensboro Grain, a refinery located on the Ohio River. Morris suffered a work-related injury while performing deckhand duties, including loading items onto a barge. Morris received benefits from Owensboro Grain's Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) insurance policy. Later, Morris filed a claim for Kentucky workers' compensation benefits. Owensboro Grain denied the claim on the grounds that the injury was not covered under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. An ALJ dismissed Morris's claim, finding that Morris's injury fell under the LHWCA, and therefore, Kentucky had no subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. The Workers' Compensation Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Morris was covered under the LHWCA, he was exempt from Kentucky's workers' compensation law unless Owensboro Grain provided him voluntary coverage; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove that Owensboro Grain provided voluntary workers' compensation coverage to Morris. View "Morris v. Owensboro Grain Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Appellee worked for the City of Middlesboro. Approximately one month before the last date of his paid employment, Appellant filed for disability retirement benefits as a member of the County Employees Retirement Systems. Appellant based his application on a work-related back injury and "breathing problems," citing his diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the reason for his breathing problems. A hearing officer recommended denial of benefits, concluding that Appellee's COPD was the result of his chronic use of tobacco and that there was no permanent impairment to Appellee's back. The Disability Appeals Committee adopted the hearing officer's recommended order. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the hearing officer had failed to consider the cumulative effect of Appellee's various impairments and that the hearing officer improperly considered Appellee's chronic tobacco use as a "pre-existing condition." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the hearing officer did, in fact, consider the combined effect of Appellee's impairments as required by Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.600; and (2) the hearing officer's conclusion that Appellee's COPD was a pre-existing condition was reasonable. View "Ky. Ret. Sys. v. West" on Justia Law