University of Kentucky, A/K/A Uk Healthcare v. Sarah R. Moore, 599 S.W.3d 798

Sarah Moore incurred unpaid medical bills from UK Healthcare and the University certified those accounts as agency debts and referred them to the Department of Revenue’s Enterprise Collections Office for collection. The Department imposed a 25% collection fee, interest, and engaged in garnishment of tax refunds, bank accounts, and wages without a court judgment.
Moore sued the University of Kentucky (UK/UK Healthcare) and the Department of Revenue, seeking declaratory relief that UK is not an “agency in the executive branch” under KRS 45.237(l)(a) and therefore could not refer debts for collection under KRS 45.237–45.238.
Moore later limited her complaint to declaratory relief on the narrow question whether UK is in the executive branch for purposes of KRS 45.237 et seq.; the trial court held UK is not in the executive branch and entered a final declaratory judgment.
UK and the Department appealed. This Court accepted transfer and reviewed two legal questions de novo: (1) whether UK is within the executive branch for KRS 45.237 purposes; and (2) whether sovereign immunity bars Moore’s declaratory action.
The Supreme Court affirmed that sovereign immunity does not bar the declaratory-judgment action but reversed the trial court’s holding and concluded the University is within the executive branch for purposes of KRS 45.237 et seq., remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the University of Kentucky is an "agency in the executive branch" for purposes of KRS 45.237/45.238	Moore: UK was removed from Dept. of Education in 1952 and is statutorily independent; Governor lacks operational control, so UK is not in the executive branch	UK & Dept: statutory text and precedent show universities are state agencies attached to the executive branch despite statutory independence	UK is within the executive branch for purposes of KRS 45.237 et seq.; trial court’s contrary judgment reversed
Whether sovereign immunity bars Moore’s declaratory-judgment action	Moore: Declaratory Judgment Act allows courts to declare rights; declaratory relief is not a claim for money and is not barred by sovereign immunity	UK & Dept: declaratory relief could be used to obtain monetary relief from the treasury, so sovereign immunity bars the suit	Sovereign immunity does not bar a declaratory-judgment action challenging statutory rights; affirmed

Beshear v. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d 355 (Ky. 2016) (state universities are agencies attached to the executive branch though relatively independent)
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Ret. Sys., 396 S.W.3d 833 (Ky. 2013) (sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory-judgment actions)
Haydon Bridge Co., Inc. v. Beshear, 416 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2013) (recognized declaratory and prospective injunctive relief exceptions to sovereign immunity)
Withers v. Univ. of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. 1997) (University treated as state agency for certain purposes and shares sovereign immunity)
LRC v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. 1984) (Kentucky Constitution recognizes only three branches; no fourth branch exists)
Jacobsen v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.3d 600 (Ky. 2012) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Univ. of Louisville v. Rothstein, 532 S.W.3d 644 (Ky. 2017) (statutory interpretation follows plain meaning)
Furtula v. Univ. of Kentucky, 438 S.W.3d 303 (Ky. 2014) (discussion of the type and scope of immunity enjoyed by UK)