Bell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Department for Community Based Services
2014 Ky. LEXIS 86
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Mary Bell, a disabled SSI recipient, participated in the DCBS Home and Community Based Waiver Program (HCBW) and was charged a co-pay based on income differences after a RSDI increase.
- DCBS calculated Bell’s co-pay by comparing her Allowance to her new higher income from RSDI; the court-ordered a $60 monthly co-pay.
- Bell’s father appealed, arguing the Pickle Amendment required income adjustments; the hearing officer denied this, and the circuit court adopted the Pickle Amendment reasoning.
- Bell sought attorney’s fees and disclosure of records of other participants; the circuit court reserved ruling and later awarded fees, then produced a broad disclosure order.
- Court of Appeals reversed both the attorney’s fees and disclosure orders; this Court granted discretionary review to address the court’s authority.
- The Supreme Court holds that trial courts lack equitable or inherent authority to award attorney’s fees or order disclosure of all other participants, and the disclosure order was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees authorized by equity or statute | Bell argues for equitable relief via inherent power | Cabinet says no statute or contract authorizes fees | No authority for fees; defeats award |
| Disclosure of records of other participants | Bell seeks disclosure to expose Cabinet practices | Cabinet rights to privacy and no standing for others’ records | Disclosure order improper; standing and privacy concerns blocked |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorman v. Baumlisberger, 271 Ky. 806, 113 S.W.2d 432 (Ky. 1938) (equity powers are limited; not broad authority to award fees without law)
- S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S., 265 S.W.3d 804 (Ky.App.2008) (equitable considerations cannot trump written law)
- Department of Revenue v. D & W Auto Supply, Inc., 614 S.W.2d 542 (Ky.App.1981) (costs vs. attorney’s fees; discretionary nature of costs against Commonwealth)
- Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Foster, 338 S.W.3d 788 (Ky.App.2010) (sanctions may award fees only to protect court integrity; narrow use)
- Vittitow v. Keene, 265 Ky. 66, 95 S.W.2d 1083 (1936) (equity cannot override legislatively enacted rules)
- Barger v. Ward, 407 S.W.2d 397 (Ky.1966) (equity powers have definite limits)