Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In this case the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether to adopt the "economic loss rule," which prevents the commercial purchaser of a product from suing in tort to recover for the economic losses arising from the malfunction of the product itself. The case involved a claim to insurers for a damaged piece of machinery. The insurers sued the manufacturers to recover the amount paid, claiming several causes of action including negligence, strict liability, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court held the economic loss rule barred the tort claims. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's adoption and application of the rule. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the economic loss rule applies to claims arising from a defective product sold in a commercial transaction, and that the relevant product is the entire item bargained for by the parties and placed in the stream of commerce by the manufacturer; and (2) the economic loss rule applies regardless of whether the product fails over a period of time or destroys itself in a calamitous event, and the rule's application is not limited to negligence and strict liability claims but also encompasses negligent misrepresentation claims.

Appellant Sarah Dudley filed suit against real parties in interest Erdagon Atasoy, M.D., and Kleinert Kutz and Associates for alleged negligent diagnosis, care, and treatment related to Dudley's adverse reaction to an injection in her shoulder. In a discovery request, the real parties in interest sought appellant's medical records, including her psychiatric records. Appellant filed a motion for a protective order to prevent her psychiatric records from being subject to discovery. Judge Olu Stevens denied appellant's motion, finding that her physical and mental condition was at the heart of her claims. Appellant then filed for a writ of prohibition against Judge Stevens to prevent the discovery of her psychiatric records. The court of appeals denied appellant's petition. Appellant appealed, arguing that her records were subject to the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Ky. R. Evid. 507(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellant waived her psychotherapist-patient privilege because she asserted her mental condition as part of her claim and that Judge Stevens did not err by denying appellant's motion for a protective order.

The court of appeals affirmed the decision in which the Workers' Compensation Board ("Board") held that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred by denying future medical benefits for claimant's work-related injury but that the evidence did not compel an award of permanent income benefits. At issue was whether substantial evidence supported an award of future medical benefits and whether the evidence compelled the ALJ to find that claimant's injury produced a permanent impairment rating and entitled him to permanent income benefits. The court held that KRS 342.020(1) entitled claimant to be awarded future medical benefits where evidence that he required no medical treatment as of the date he reached maximum medical improvement or the date that his claim was heard was an improper basis to deny future medical benefits. The court also held that the evidence the injury warranted a permanent impairment rating was not so overwhelming as to render the decision that was made unreasonable.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision in which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Appellant's work-related injury was only partially disabling. The appellate court denied Appellant's motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a petition for review. The court rejected Appellant's argument that CR 76.25 permits time for filing a petition for review to be enlarged before it expires. On review of the record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter back to the appellate court, holding that CR 76.25 "serves two functions. It is both the document for invoking the court's jurisdiction to consider an appeal, and the document for stating the petitioner's grounds for seeking appellate relief."

Carol Forte taught elementary school in the Nelson County Public School System. She was killed as she was leaving the school grounds when an unsecured pole gate blown by the wind hit her car and struck her in the head. Her husband Gene first filed a tort claim in the Nelson Circuit Court against the County Board of Education. Being aware of the Board's defense of governmental immunity, Forte filed a "protective" claim with the Board of Claims, raising the same issues in his tort action in the circuit court, asking the Board of Claims to hold its action in abeyance until the circuit court decided on the immunity issue. The Board of Education responded to the claims by arguing that the Board of Claims had sole jurisdiction in the matter, and that the action was time barred and should be dismissed. Forte then filed a new action in the circuit court for review of the Board of Claims order, asking that that order be set aside. Before a response was filed, Forte filed a supplemental memorandum specifically raising the state "saving statute." The Board of Education responded with the same arguments it made before the Board of Claims. The circuit court entered an opinion vacating the Board of Claims order, and remanding the matter back the Board of Claims for a decision on the abeyance. The Board of Education appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. After the appeal was filed, the circuit court granted the Board of Education's motion for summary judgment on the grounds it had governmental immunity. On review of the record of the lower courts, the Supreme Court found that the Board of Claims did not have jurisdiction over the claim brought before it, and Forte's claim made there was premature. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision on that matter and remanded the case to the circuit court. The Court affirmed the appellate court's affirmation of the motion for summary judgment acknowledging its governmental immunity.