Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffnegligenceliabilitystatuteappealtrialmalpracticesovereign immunity

tortnegligenceliabilitystatuteappealmalpracticeappellantsovereign immunity

Related Cases

Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340, 116 Ed. Law Rep. 1257

Facts

The case arose from a wrongful death claim against the University of Kentucky Medical Center, where the plaintiff alleged medical negligence leading to the death of Emilie M. Withers. The University sought dismissal based on sovereign immunity, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal, leading to a discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

1 Appellants brought this claim for wrongful death against the University of Kentucky arising out of the alleged medical negligence of certain physicians. They alleged that the negligent parties were agents of the University of Kentucky and that their conduct caused the death of Emilie M. Withers.

Issue

Whether the University of Kentucky is entitled to sovereign immunity from claims of medical negligence at its medical center, and if so, whether any statutes constitute a waiver of that immunity.

At issue here is whether the University of Kentucky is entitled to immunity from claims of medical negligence at its medical center, and, if so, whether statutes authorizing its participation in a malpractice compensation fund and its actual participation in the fund are sufficient to constitute a waiver of immunity.

Rule

Sovereign immunity is a doctrine established by Section 231 of the Kentucky Constitution, which protects certain governmental entities from lawsuits unless there is an express waiver of that immunity.

The determination of whether an entity is entitled to protection by the constitutional principle of sovereign immunity is for the judiciary.

Analysis

The court applied the two-pronged test from Kentucky Center for the Arts Corp. v. Berns to determine if the University of Kentucky qualifies for sovereign immunity. It found that the University operates under the direction and control of the state government and is funded by state resources, thus satisfying the criteria for immunity. The court also noted that the mere purchase of liability insurance does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

The immune status of the University of Kentucky was expressly recognized in Frederick v. University of Kentucky Medical Center, Ky.App., 596 S.W.2d 30 (1980), a case involving the same statutory provision here under review, and likewise recognized in the leading case, Dunlap v. University of Kentucky Student Health Services Clinic, Ky., 716 S.W.2d 219 (1986).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the University of Kentucky is entitled to sovereign immunity and that the Medical Center Malpractice Insurance Act does not waive this immunity.

We hold that the 1986 statutory changes abrogated the rule in Dunlap and its line of decisions which found waiver of immunity based on the purchase of liability insurance whether or not pursuant to statutory authorization.

Who won?

University of Kentucky; the court ruled in favor of the University, affirming its sovereign immunity status.

The Court of Appeals squarely held that the University of Kentucky was entitled to sovereign immunity from its tortious conduct.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 222 S.E.2d 783

Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1994 WL 728202

Moreland v. Austin, 284 Ga. 730, 670 S.E.2d 68, 08 FCDR 3431, 09 FCDR 6

Forshey v. Jackson, 222 W.Va. 743, 671 S.E.2d 748

Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 581, 499 N.E.2d 952, 102 Ill.Dec. 172