Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Norman Wilson
528 S.W.3d 336
| Ky. | 2017Background
- Norman Wilson filed a complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court seeking judicial review of an adverse KUIC decision under KRS 341.450(1), which requires the complaint to be "verified by the plaintiff or his attorney."
- Wilson’s attorney signed the complaint; Wilson signed an attached verification page stating the complaint was truthful "to the best of my knowledge," but neither signature was notarized or sworn before an officer.
- The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed the complaint as unverified based on this Court’s prior decision in Taylor v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Shamrock Coal Co. v. Taylor, which tolerated a “clear attempt at verification” (termed "sufficient compliance").
- The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Shamrock remains viable after Taylor and whether unsworn signatures satisfy KRS 341.450(1).
- The Court overruled Shamrock, held that verification requires oath and attestation (not merely an unsworn signature or attorney certification), and reinstated the circuit court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unsigned/notarized signature constitutes the statutory "verification" under KRS 341.450(1) for judicial review of KUIC decisions | Wilson: the document was styled "Verified Complaint," included his signed declaration of truth, and bore counsel’s signature — showing a clear attempt at verification | KUIC: verification requires strict compliance — an oath and attestation by an authorized officer; unsworn signatures and attorney certification are insufficient | Held: Verification requires oath/attestation; unsworn signature/attorney CR 11 certification do not satisfy KRS 341.450(1) |
| Whether Shamrock’s "sufficient compliance/clear attempt at verification" doctrine remains good law after Taylor | Wilson/Court of Appeals: Shamrock allows substantial/sufficient compliance to cure technical defects | KUIC: Shamrock conflicts with Taylor’s strict-jurisdictional rule and must be overruled | Held: Shamrock overruled; no substantial-compliance exception for this jurisdictional precondition |
| Distinction between "certification" (CR 11) and statutory "verification" | Wilson: counsel’s signature and claimant’s unsworn declaration suffice as practical verification | KUIC: certification is personal affirmation; verification requires formality of oath and third-party attestation | Held: Taylor’s distinction affirmed — certification ≠ verification; verification requires sworn attestation |
| Effect of failing to meet statutory verification on circuit court authority | Wilson: defect was technical and curable; merits should be reached | KUIC: failure to strictly comply prevents vesting of authority to adjudicate the appeal | Held: Failure to satisfy verification requirement deprives the court of authority to proceed on that case until statute complied with |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 382 S.W.3d 826 (Ky. 2012) (held a properly verified complaint is required; attorney CR 11 signature insufficient)
- Shamrock Coal Co. v. Taylor, 697 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985) (previously held a "clear attempt at verification" could suffice; overruled)
- Board of Adjustments of City of Richmond v. Flood, 581 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1978) (statutory right to appeal requires strict compliance with conditions imposed by legislature)
- City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954 (Ky. 1990) (substantial compliance discussion limited to nonjurisdictional defects)
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Comm’n v. Carter, 689 S.W.2d 360 (Ky. 1985) (no substantial compliance exception for jurisdictional appeal requirements)
- Spears v. Goodwine, 490 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. 2016) (clarified that an unverified complaint’s defect does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction but leaves the court without jurisdiction of the particular case)