Dustin C. Beard v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services
2020 CA 000037
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Beard, a private attorney, alleges Cabinet employee Tabitha Schnell requested he petition to be guardian/conservator for L.C.K., asked him to track hours, and promised payment after representation.
- Beard worked on the matter from September 12, 2017, to July 18, 2018, invoiced $39,315, and the Cabinet refused payment.
- Beard sued to enforce the alleged contract; the case was transferred to Franklin Circuit Court under KRS 45A.245(1). He attached emails, a detailed invoice, and an affidavit from the Scott County assistant attorney stating Beard represented the Cabinet.
- The Cabinet moved to dismiss under CR 12.02, arguing Beard produced no lawfully authorized written contract and sovereign/governmental immunity barred suit.
- The circuit court granted dismissal. Beard appealed, arguing he was hired, immunity was waived or inapplicable, and the Cabinet had blocked discovery of written evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed that a written contract is required to sue the Commonwealth, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for the trial court to review the underlying L.C.K. record and permit limited discovery to determine whether a written contract exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beard was retained by the Cabinet for the L.C.K. matter | Beard: Cabinet (via Schnell and staff) engaged him and knew he represented the Cabinet | Cabinet: No lawfully authorized retention; denies contractual relationship | Record underdeveloped; remand to review underlying case to ascertain scope of representation |
| Whether sovereign/governmental immunity was waived so Beard may enforce an alleged contract | Beard: Cabinet waived immunity or had promised a written agreement after services | Cabinet: Immunity bars suit unless there is a lawfully authorized written contract per statute and precedent | Affirmed that waiver requires a written contract; suit cannot proceed absent such a writing unless proven otherwise |
| Whether Beard's emails, invoice, and affidavit suffice as a written contract | Beard: Those documents, plus Cabinet records, can show a written agreement | Cabinet: Documents do not establish a lawfully authorized written contract | Court ordered limited discovery and review of documents/underlying record to decide if those materials amount to a written contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitworth, 74 S.W.3d 695 (Ky. 2002) (holds lawsuits to enforce Commonwealth contracts require a written contract)
- Skeens v. University of Louisville, 565 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. App. 2018) (standard for CR 12.02 dismissal review)
- Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky. 2009) (discusses sovereign immunity as an attribute of the state)
- Ruplinger v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, 607 S.W.3d 583 (Ky. 2020) (sovereign immunity can be waived only by the General Assembly)
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (governmental immunity principles and limitations)
- Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. Edwards, 566 S.W.3d 175 (Ky. 2018) (limited discovery may be permitted on immunity questions before dismissal)
- Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic, 142 S.W.3d 128 (Ky. 2004) (immunity protects against burdens of broad-reaching discovery)