Keith Spears v. Hon Pamela R. Goodwine Judge, Fayette Circuit Court, 2016 Ky. LEXIS 253

Background

Keith Spears, a Lexington police officer and member of the Policemen’s and Firefighter’s Retirement Fund, applied for statutory disability benefits after a work-related injury; the Board denied his claim.
Spears timely appealed the Board’s denial to Fayette Circuit Court under KRS 67A.670(1); his original petition was filed by counsel but was not verified (not signed by Spears).
After the Board moved to dismiss for lack of verification, Spears filed a later verification and an affidavit explaining he was unavailable to sign earlier because he was working out of town, and argued the later verification cured the defect via substantial compliance.
The circuit court denied the Board’s motion, finding Spears had substantially complied by later verifying the petition.
The Board sought a writ of prohibition from the Court of Appeals; that court granted the writ, concluding the deficiency deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, vacating the writ.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when an initial petition for judicial review is unverified	Spears: later verification and affidavit cured the defect; circuit court may proceed under substantial compliance	Board: unverified initial petition is jurisdictionally fatal; circuit court had no power to hear the appeal	Court: statute vests subject-matter jurisdiction in circuit court; defective verification does not deprive court of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether a writ of prohibition (first-class) was proper to halt the circuit court	Spears: extraordinary relief unnecessary because circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction	Board: first-class writ appropriate because the trial court was proceeding outside its jurisdiction	Court: first-class writ unavailable because the circuit court was acting within its subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether a writ of prohibition (second-class) was proper given alleged error	Spears: ordinary appeal suffices to correct any error	Board: immediate writ needed because proceeding would be erroneous without verification	Court: second-class writ unavailable—Board failed to show no adequate remedy by appeal and great injustice or irreparable injury
Whether a special-case writ is warranted to protect the administration of justice	Spears: no systemic harm; ordinary appellate review adequate	Board: (argued implicitly) strict enforcement needed to prevent disorder	Court: special-case writ inappropriate; no substantial miscarriage of justice or threat to orderly administration of justice

Key Cases Cited

Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004) (extraordinary writs are disfavored and granted cautiously)
PremierTox 2.0 v. Miniard, 407 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2013) (describes classes of prohibition writs)
3M Co. v. Engle, 328 S.W.3d 184 (Ky. 2010) (writ standards and scope)
Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864 (Ky. 2004) (standard of appellate review for writs)
Newell Enters., Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750 (Ky. 2005) (appellate review principles for writs)
St. Joseph Catholic Orphan Soc’y v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2014) (clarifies subject-matter jurisdiction in writ context)
Lee v. George, 369 S.W.3d 29 (Ky. 2012) (discusses subject-matter jurisdiction scope)
Duncan v. O’Nan, 451 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. 1970) (subject-matter jurisdiction means power over this kind of case)
Daugherty v. Telek, 366 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. 2012) (pleadings that identify the kind of case establish subject-matter jurisdiction)
Taylor v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 382 S.W.3d 826 (Ky. 2012) (strict-compliance precedent on verification in a similar statutory context)
Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961) (special-case writ where administration of justice generally would suffer)
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Johnson, 323 S.W.3d 646 (Ky. 2010) (limits on irreparable-injury showing for writ relief)