Opinion of the Court by
The Movants, Kindred Hospitals Limited Partnership, 1 et al., (“Kindred”) pursuant to CR 65.09(2), move this Court to vacate or modify the January 25, 2006 Order entered by the Court of Appeals, which denied Kindred’s Motion for Interlocutory Relief pursuant to CR 65.07(1). Having reviewed the motions and being otherwise sufficiently informed of the record below, this Court now denies the motion for the relief requested for failure to show extraordinаry cause.
The underlying action began when Respondent, Susan Lutrell, daughter and Administratrix for the estate of Altha Duncan, initiated a suit against Kindred alleging a number of causes of action, including negligence and wrongful death.
Kindred filed a motion pursuant to KRS 417.050 2 to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay litigation pending arbitration of the parties’ controversy. The Casey Circuit Court denied Kindred’s motion, finding that Respondent did not have express or implied authority to bind her mother, Ms. Duncan (nor her estate), to the provisions of the arbitration agreement signed by Respondent upon admitting Ms. Duncan to a nursing home facility owned by Kindred.
Kindred then sought relief in the Court of Appeals from the interlocutory order of the Casey Circuit Court entered оn October 7, 2005, denying their motion to dismiss or to stay litigation pending alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings. Movants styled their appeal as a motion for interlocutory relief pursuant to CR 65.07. The Court of Appeals, however, denied the motion for having been improperly taken.
Kindred has asked this Court for interlocutory relief pursuаnt to CR 65.09, which provides, in pertinent part, that
[a]ny party adversely affected by an order of the Court of Appeals in a proceeding under Rule 65.07 or Rule 65.08 may within five (5) days after the date on which such order was entered, move the Supreme Court to vacate or modify it. The decision whether to review such order shall be discretionаry with the Supreme Court. Such a motion will be entertained only for extraordinary cause shown in the motion.
(Emphasis added).
Thus, we will only address Kindred’s claims for relief where extraordinary cause *918 is shown. On this issue, we note several of this Court’s previous opinions addressing “extraordinary cause.”
This Court recently addressed the requirement of “extraordinary cause” in
National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Lasege,
In other cases, however, we have found extraordinary cause to be lacking. In
Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Sprowls,
As in Sprowls, supra, Kindred scarcely, if ever, addresses the trial court’s decision and whether it abused its discretion. We find here that Kindred has failed to show extraordinary cause as CR 65.09 requires. We thus affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, although for different reasons set out herein.
In its order denying interlocutory relief for Kindred, the Court of Appeals, citing an earlier decision, held that CR 65.07 was not a proper mechanism for a party to appeal a trial court’s denial of an application to compel arbitration and that a notice of appeal was required. Specifically, the Court of Appeals stated that
[i]t is clear that this Court dismissed the notice of appeal taken in Bridgestone/Firestone [v. McQueen,3 S.W.3d 366 (Ky.Aрp.1999) ] because the underlying matter, an employment dispute, was not governed by the provisions of the UAA. This then left CR 65.07 as the only mechanism by which to appeal from an order that was not favorable to arbitration since the order, being of an interlocutory nature, was subject to the same rule applying to any other order that only a final order may be taken on appeal.... [Mjovants chose the provisions of CR 65.07 to present their challenge to this Court and, in doing so, they chose a form of relief that is inconsistent with the remedy provided under KRS 417.220.
(Citations omitted).
The Kentucky Uniform Arbitration Act (“KUAA”) provides for appeals from “[a] judgment or decree entered pursuant to the provisions of [KRS Chapter 417].” 3 KRS 417.220(l)(f). KRS 417.220(2) provides that “[t]he appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.” The Court of Appeals reads this as requiring a notice of appeal as if from a final judgment and has found the mechanism *919 provided in CR 65.07 to be inappropriate in these circumstances. In citing its earlier decision in Bridgestone/Firestone, supra, the Court of Appeals draws a distinction between appeals involving arbitration disputes in the employment context, which are specifically exempt from KUAA, and arbitration disputes that fall under the provisions of KUAA. Although the Court of Appeals was correct in denying Kindred’s CR 65.07 motion, we find that the court’s reading аnd application of KRS 417.220 is misplaced.
In requesting interlocutory relief pursuant to 65.07, a party is arguing that, by granting or denying an injunction under CR 65.04, the trial court’s decision is not based on substantial evidence and is clearly erroneous.
See National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Lasege,
Although a party’s burden is much higher in bringing a motion for interlocutory relief pursuant to CR 65.07 and CR 65.09, as opposed to an appeal pursuant to CR 78, we find that these mechanisms are not foreclosed by the language of KRS 417.220. In so stating, we reiterate what other stаte and federal courts have stated before, to wit, that a denial of a motion to compel arbitration and to stay litigation is akin to a denial of an injunction.
See J & K Cement Const., Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc.,
The issue in this appeal stems directly from the trial court’s denial of a motion made pursuant to KRS 417.050, and thus the appellatе mechanism provided in KRS 417.220(2), though somewhat vague in its requirements, nonetheless serves as the appropriate basis for the appeal in this case. However, to require a notice of appeal and to rule in such a way as to foreclose the use of the appellate review mechanism provided by CR 65.07 in casеs where KUAA applies, as the Court of Appeals has ruled, is contrary to the language of KRS 417.220, i.e., “to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.” Nowhere in KRS 417.220 is *920 there an explicit requirement that a party must submit a notice of appeal, nor by its terms does the rule suggest such a notice is required. At this point, we think it approрriate to briefly review the case law regarding appellate review of trial court rulings implicating the Kentucky Uniform Arbitration Act.
In the employment context, to which KUAA is inapplicable, Kentucky courts have noted that CR 65.07 is one way in which an aggrieved party may have appellate review for what would ordinarily be considerеd a non-appealable, interlocutory order.
See e.g., Bridgestone/Firestone, supra.
In
Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Sprowls,
Where the KUAA. is applicable, however, our courts have noted that the appeal is made pursuant to KRS 417.220. In
Valley Constr., Co., Inc. v. Perry Host Mgmt. Co., Inc.,
In order to reconcile the distinction drawn by the Court of Appeals between KUAA-applicable cases and those cases to which KUAA is inapplicable, we need only discern the clear meaning of the words in KRS 417.220(2). KRS 417.220(2) states that “[t]he appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.” As previously stated, the rule does not require a notice of appeal and does not, by its terms, restrict appeals of those enumerated items in KRS 417.220(1) to one mechanism. Rather, the statute recognizes that interlocutory relief may be afforded a party whose appeal is enumerated in KRS 417.220(1). Our courts have consistently found appeals of denials of motions to сompel arbitration to be interlocutory in nature. See e.g., Bean, supra. Thus, it is of no consequence if a case is an employment arbitration dispute to which KUAA is inapplicable or a case where KUAA is applicable, such as the present one. What matters is that the party bringing the appeal has met the requisite burden and has complied with whatever appellate mechanism is being utilized to contest the trial court’s decision. Here, Kindred chose to use CR 65.07, and in doing so, it had a high burden to meet in order to obtain the relief requested.
Most significantly, we have addressed a very similar question in a request for extraordinary relief pursuant to CR 81. In
*921
Cavalier Homes of Alabama v. Coleman,
For practical reasons, we do not espouse the adoption of CR 65.07 as an exclusive means for appealing denials of motions to stay litigаtion; however, CR 65.07 is appropriate for such an appeal, as is CR 73. We have allowed appeals under CR 65.07 for employment cases involving arbitration disputes; thus, this avenue of appeal under KRS 417.220 should not be foreclosed for those occasions where the grounds set out in CR 65.04(1) are met.
There are, of course, cеrtain inherent dangers accorded to an appeal under CR 65.07. The Court of Appeals may find that the requisite irreparable injury is so lacking that review is foreclosed. The party may then find itself without remedy, especially if the time for an appeal under CR 73 has lapsed. Then again, the Court may find the party has met its burden but also find the trial court’s decision was based on substantial evidence. These are simply the risks inherent in making any appeal, but they become much more pervasive in the context of the limited time in which to make an interlocutory request for relief.
Although we now acknowledge that KRS 417.220 allows two separate, but appropriate, avenues for appeal, “one is entitled [, however,] to only one ‘bite at the apple.’”
Mingey v. Cline Leasing Service, Inc.,
“[I]t is absurd to assume that an individual could in fact have the opportunity to choose between remedies,” such as two modes of appeal, and then after pursuing one mode and reaching a final decision under one appellate standard, still have the option to take another “bite” under a different standard.
Vaezkoroni v. Domino’s Pizza Inc.,
However, when a new rule is enacted that “would impair rights a party possessed when he acted ... or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed,” there is a general presumption the rule should not be applied retroactively.
Republic of Austria v. Altmann,
CONCLUSION
We hold that a party may appeal the decision of a trial court, which implicates any of the enumerated items in KRS 417.220(1), utilizing either a motion for interlocutory relief pursuant to CR 65.07, or a notice of appeal pursuant to CR 73, as long as that party fulfills the requirements and meets the burdens in so making the appeal. But in the future, a party may only choose one route. In this case, however, we find that Kindred has failed to meet its burden to show “extraordinary cause” in its CR 65.09 motion, and thus we deny the relief requested and affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth above.
Notes
. Movant, Kindrеd Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Liberty Care Center, notes in its motion for relief to this Court that it has been incorrectly named in the complaint and that its correct name is Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership.
. This statute is part of the Kentucky Uniform Arbitration Act (KUAA), KRS 417.045 — .240.
. In this case, the Casey Circuit Court denied Kindred’s motion to stay litigation pending arbitration because the court found the arbitration agreement was signed by a person with no authority to bind Ms. Duncan or her estate. The court's decision was made pursuant to KRS 417.050, which provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereaftеr arising ... is valid, enforceable and irrevocable save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any contract.” (Emphasis added).
. In Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Court held that a statute should not be applied retroactively absent clear congressional intent to do so. The legal reasoning for non-retroactive application is well applied here. Although we rule today an appellant with two avenues of appeal must choose one, we do not apply it to Kindred because it appropriately filed its appeals within the apparent confines of the law at the time filed.
. In this case, we understand Kindred also has an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals per CR 73.