The issues involve a jurisdictional dispute arising from failure to assert “injured or aggrieved” status in an attempted appeal from final action of a board of adjustment to circuit court. Arguments heard on May 22, 2020.
On this cross-motion for discretionary review, the issue is whether the claimant in a Federal Employers Liability Act case should have been entitled to a directed verdict at the close of the evidence. A second issue was whether the trial court should have granted the claimant’s motion in limine regarding the railroad’s opposing argument in the damage phase of the trial. Arguments heard on May 20, 2020.
At issue is the use of a “friend of the court” to obtain information and the extent to which they may testify, specifically whether they may qualify as experts to provide opinion testimony and/or may testify as to hearsay or provide written reports containing hearsay. Arguments heard on April 22, 2020.
At issue is whether expert medical testimony is required to present a jury question of entitlement to emotional distress damages for a “stand-alone” claim of statutory violation addressed in KRS 411.120, specifically alleging victimization of identity theft proscribed by KRS 514.160. Arguments heard on Feb. 13, 2020.
At issue is whether the “continuous treatment” rule tolls the statute of limitations only for the period of treatment by the physician who was allegedly negligent, or whether it may be extended for the period of treatment by other physicians in the same practice group as the allegedly negligent physician. A second issue is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the allegedly negligent treating physicians were not ostensible agents of the hospital. Arguments heard on Feb. 13, 2020.
Seiller Waterman, LLC, et al. v. RLB Properties, LTD. and RLB Properties, LTD v. Seiller Waterman, LLC, et al.
At issue is whether a negligence claim may be brought by a party to a prior lawsuit against the attorney for the opposing party when the suit was a frivolous claim and an unlawful lien was filed in favor of the opposing party, and whether the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence is extended to five years when there is evidence of malice. Arguments heard on Feb. 13, 2020.
At issue is whether the Movant was a person defined by the statute as having custodial control or supervision of a child to justify an investigation and sanctions against her. In the alternative, was the Movant a person in a position of authority or special trust under KRS 532.045 sufficient to justify an investigation where another child is allegedly abusive to children under her care and/or supervision. Arguments heard on Feb. 12, 2020.
At issue is whether the disability claimant’s genetic blood disorder predated his membership in the Kentucky Retirement Systems, and whether KRS provided the disability claimant with sufficient opportunity to supplement his evidence with pre-employment medical records following KRS’s order remanding the case to the hearing officer for further consideration. Arguments heard on Feb. 12, 2020.
At issue is whether public employees who are members of the Kentucky Retirement Systems have legal standing to sue KRS trustees and hedge-fund managers. Arguments heard on Oct. 24, 2019.