Preview:

RENDERED:

DECEMBER 1, 2006; 2:00 P.M.

ORDERED NOT PUBLISHED BY SUPREME COURT: AUGUST 15, 2007 (FILE NO. 2007-SC-0215-DG)

Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-000862-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, TRANSPORTATION CABINET AND LINDA JUSTICE

APPELLANTS

v.

APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE DANNY P. CAUDILL, JUDGE ACTION NO. 01-CI-00150

DAN HALL

APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: ABRAMSON, GUIDUGLI, AND VANMETER, JUDGES. This appeal presents this Court with the first

ABRAMSON, JUDGE:

opportunity to consider whether Kentucky should allow the interlocutory appeal of an order denying as a matter of law immunity claims raised by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, its agencies or officials in defense of litigation. The United

States Supreme Court has charted a procedural course for the federal courts which allows for immediate appeal of orders

denying either absolute or qualified immunity claims before the party claiming that immunity is subjected to the burden and expense of trial. Finding the rationale of those cases equally

persuasive for cases pursued in Kentucky courts, we hold that an order denying summary judgment on absolute or qualified immunity grounds is subject to immediate appellate review to the extent that it raises purely legal issues. After reviewing the merits

of the pending action, we reverse that portion of the trial court's order denying the absolute immunity claim of the Appellant Commonwealth of Kentucky, Transportation Cabinet, but affirm that portion of the order denying summary judgment on the qualified immunity claim of Appellant Linda Justice. RELEVANT FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS On February 18, 2000, the Transportation Cabinet placed Dan Hall, an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer at the Cabinet's Pikeville office, on involuntary administrative leave. Hall's leave was described more specifically as "sick leave for medical evaluation." According to the Cabinet, Hall had

responded angrily and inappropriately to the denial of his request for permission to work on a holiday, to a change in office security measures, and to an unfavorable performance review. Because of Hall's uncharacteristically angry behavior,

Cabinet officials were allegedly concerned that he posed a danger to himself or others in the office. The Cabinet required

-2-

Hall to take sick leave and conditioned his return to work upon his being psychologically evaluated and found fit. On Hall's appeal, the Personnel Board upheld the Cabinet's order. However, the Franklin Circuit Court, by order

rendered June 13, 2001, ruled that though the Cabinet had authority pursuant to 101 KAR 2:102

Download 2005-ca-001211.pdf

Kentucky Law