Wilson v. Askew
568 S.W.3d 375
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Wilson, an Attorney Senior for Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), was charged (2009) with inefficiency and insubordination for allegedly untimely/deficient legal work; the Civil Service Commission (CSC) sustained his termination but issued no factual findings.
- This Court (2013) reversed and remanded because the CSC’s one‑paragraph decision lacked factual findings, directing the agency to enter findings based on the original hearing record.
- On remand the CSC (with proposed findings drafted by attorney David Enlow) adopted detailed findings and again sustained termination; Wilson challenged Enlow’s involvement and the speed of adoption.
- The circuit court reviewed the remand record, concluded the CSC’s findings were supported by the original hearing transcript, granted partial summary judgment for defendants on certain state‑law counts, and affirmed the termination; Wilson’s CR 59.05 motion was denied.
- Wilson appealed, raising recusal and jurisdictional challenges to the remand, a claimed right to a new de novo hearing, evidentiary complaints about the admissions of his work product, and objections to Enlow’s role and deposition denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial judge recusal under KRS 26A.015(2)(a) | Judge previously affirmed CSC’s original decision and thus expressed an opinion requiring recusal | Prior judicial participation does not mandate recusal; prior opinion was on a different record | No recusal; prior judicial action did not disqualify judge for the remand review |
| Authority to remand / applicability of KRS Ch.13B | This Court lacked authority to remand and KRS 13B.150 cannot supply jurisdiction because local gov’t agencies are exempt under KRS 13B.020(2)(f) | Appellate courts may remand under KRS 13B.150 principles; prior opinion stands as law of the case | Remand for CSC findings was proper; law of the case applies and exception not shown |
| Right to a new de novo hearing after remand (KRS 67A.290) | Remand required a fresh de novo hearing before the circuit court | Wilson already received de novo review in earlier appeal and identifies no new evidence to warrant another hearing | No new de novo hearing required; prior de novo review sufficed |
| Validity of CSC findings drafted by non‑member (Enlow); deposition request | Enlow’s drafting and limited commissioner deliberation invalidates findings; Wilson should be allowed to depose Enlow | Commissioners had the transcript and draft findings to review; Commissioner of Law could retain counsel; Enlow’s deposition unnecessary | Findings were valid; commissioners had opportunity to review and adopt findings; denial of Enlow deposition not reversible |
| Evidentiary complaint (best evidence, admission of Wilson’s work) | KRE 1002 bars testimony about Wilson’s allegedly deficient work because originals not admitted | Copies of Wilson’s work were admitted at the CSC hearing and appear in the record | No merit to exclusion claim; work product was in evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Phelps v. Sallee, 529 S.W.2d 361 (Ky. Ct. App.) (discusses limits on an agency's power to alter final orders)
- Poorman v. Commonwealth, 782 S.W.2d 603 (Ky. 1989) (clarifies recusal principles and distinguishes extra‑judicial knowledge from prior judicial rulings)
- Blackwell's Adm'r, 291 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1956) (articulates law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and narrow exceptions)
- Brooks v. Lexington‑Fayette Urban County Housing Auth., 244 S.W.3d 747 (Ky. Ct. App.) (applies law‑of‑the‑case exceptions analysis)
- Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1939) (supports remand for agency findings when record permits)