COA applied the rationale of J.B. Wolfe and Joseph A. Holpuch, that it intended for reinstatement to restore a corporation to the same position it would have occupied had it not been dissolved and that reinstatement validates any action taken by a corporation between the time it was administratively dissolved and the date of its reinstatement. Simply put, the General Assembly meant what it said, that upon reinstatement, it is “as if the administrative dissolution . . . had never occurred.”

CA affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands this medmal/product liability case involving a death associated with the prescription drug Parlodel. (Jefferson Cir. Ct., Hon. Barry Willett, judge, presiding).

Mary Gunderson died suddenly in her sleep one week following the Caesarean birth of her second child. She had been given Parlodel, a postpartum lactation suppressant. The drug had a history of adverse reactions including seizures, strokes and heart attacks dating back to 1983. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial for a total judgment exceeding $19 million, including more than $11 million in punitive damages against manufacturer Sandoz. Sandoz and the prescribing physician appeal. 

CA rejects all of appellants' arguments, however, it holds that the jury instructions improperly failed to instruct the jury that it was not to awar4d punitive damages to punish Sandoz for conduct that occurred outside of Kentucky, and vacates the punitive damage award and remands.

An off-duty police officer spotted Nichols purchasing three or more boxes of Pseudoephedrine, a meth precursor, at an Elizabethtown grocery store late at night.  The officer, who belonged to the Radcliff Police Department, contacted the Elizabethtown Police Department who dispatched an officer to the store.  The E-Town officer was told of the description of Nichols' vehicle and subsequently made an investigatory stop.  Nichols identified himself when asked his name and allowed a search of his vehicle.  The officer then found cigarettes, marijuana, Kroger bags, and multiple boxes of Pseudoephedrine pills.  Nichols also said that he was promised a payment of $200 for buying the pills and that he knew they would be used to make meth.  Following the denial of his suppression motion, Nichols entered a conditional guilty plea to Unlawful Distribution of a Meth Precursor and Possession of Marijuana.  On appeal, he argued that police performed a Terry stop without reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.  Although noting that it was a close call, CA held that a tip by a store security guard alleging that a customer has just purchased a large quantity of Pseudoephedrine, when considered with rational inferences from that act, does create a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring.  Therefore, a brief investigatory stop is permissible.

Conviction for First-Degree Robbery affirmed.  Primary issue on appeal was whether panel from which jury was drawn represented fair cross-section of community.  Kimelton failed to show that women were underrepresented on the panel. 

CA reversed Godby's conviction for Intimidating a Participant in the Legal Process (KRS 524.040) because the definition of "threat" in this statute encompases only physical injury -- not economic loss.  Because the Commonwealth only presented evidence of a threat of economic injury, the trial judge should have entered a directed verdict on this count.

Grandparents appealed denial of their petition to be named as de facto custodians and for temporary custody of their grandchildren. Affirmed.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted, and the family court issued an Order denying the grandparents' petition because they “failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that they meet the requisites to qualify as the de facto custodians of [their granddaughter].”

COA stated decisions as to the admission of evidence are left soundly to the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Welsh v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., 128 S.W.3d 41, 51 (Ky.App. 2001).  Moreover, and of particular relevance in this case, “the question of whether one party has put another at an unfair disadvantage through pretrial nondisclosures must be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Collins v. Galbraith, 494 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Ky. 1973).
 

Legal negligence claim was barred by one-year statute of limitations in a claim regarding representation of an estate.  The administrator cleaned out the estate's bank accounts and a public administrator was appointed.  One of the heirs of the estate sued the estate's attorney nearly 6 years later but within one year of the closing of the estate.  However, the cause of action accrued when the heir/beneficiary knew that the bank account had been emptied rather than the settlement.
 

CA reverses and remands the TC dismissal of this slip-and-fall claim. (Fayette Cir. Ct., Hon. Mary C. Noble, judge, presiding).  

Appellant was a nanny at Gainesway Farm in Lexington when she became stranded on a second-floor balcony when specially-designed security doors automatically shut and locked behind her. She fell trying to shimmy down a rain gutter, breaking several bones. The court dismissed the case on SJ before appellant had the opportunity to inspect the doors and depose the defendants. CA holds that SJ was inappropriate because it was not clear from the record that the heightened risk posed by the doors was obvious.

The claimant was injured while driving for her employer, thus having both a workers' compensation claim and a personal injury claim.  She settled her PI claim for $47,500 and her workers comp claim for $18,500, leaving open the right to future medical treatment.  The Court held that the way to calculate the subrogation claim was to first subtract the part of the PI claim which represents pain and suffering - not a component of the comp claim.  Next, the employee's attorney fees are subtracted from the subrogation lien.  Since workers comp will pay future medical, the Court stated that if there is a subrogation lien left after the deductions above are made, the comp carrier can take a credit against future medical payments until their lien is satisfied.  This case continues the confusion about subrogation after AIK v. Bush.