Healthcare of Louisville v. Kiesel

Decision Date29 August 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-CA-1039-MR,85-CA-1039-MR
CitationHealthcare of Louisville v. Kiesel, 715 S.W.2d 246 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals
Parties27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1662, 105 Lab.Cas. P 55,673 HEALTHCARE OF LOUISVILLE d/b/a Health Care of the Bluegrass, Appellant, v. John L. KIESEL, M.D., Appellee.

Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, for appellant.

Andrew M. Stephens, Lexington, for appellee.

Before COMBS, DYCHE and MILLER, JJ.

DYCHE, Judge:

This is an appeal from a case tried before the Fayette Circuit Court sitting without a jury after which trial judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him vacation pay, personal days pay, one week's severance pay, damages, attorney fees, and court costs. The defendant appeals to this Court as a matter of right. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The pertinent findings of the Court below are as follows: On April 21, 1981, Dr. Kiesel was employed as Medical Director by Hunter Health Plan, Inc. In May of 1982, Hunter was taken over by the appellant and renamed Health Care of the Bluegrass. Appellant assumed all the obligations of Hunter Health Plan, Inc., and retained Dr. Kiesel as Medical Director. Dr. Kiesel remained as Medical Director at Lexington until April 29, 1983, when he resigned. In exchange for his resignation, Healthcare agreed to pay Dr. Kiesel ninety (90) days severance pay, his accrued vacation pay, and two (2) personal days pay. Healthcare paid Dr. Kiesel all but one (1) week of the ninety (90) days severance pay, and refused to pay him the accrued vacation pay and the two (2) personal days pay. The Court below found that not only did Healthcare owe Dr. Kiesel these agreed-upon benefits, but that Healthcare had acted in bad faith by refusing to pay Dr. Kiesel, and therefore, awarded Dr. Kiesel damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to KRS 337.385.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly permitted Dr. Kiesel to recover against Healthcare double damages, attorney fees, and costs for failure to pay the agreed-upon benefits under KRS 337.385. Appellant does not appeal from that part of the trial court's finding of fact that the agreement to pay existed.

Appellant's first argument is that Dr. Kiesel was not an employee for purposes of KRS 337.385 and, therefore, was not entitled to recover any damages.

KRS 337.385 reads in pertinent part as follows:

(1) Any employer who pays any employe less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employe is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to 337.285 shall be liable to such employe affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation less any amounts actually paid to such employe by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney fees as may be allowed by the court.

KRS 337.010 provides two definitions for employee. KRS 337.010(1)(e) states that " 'employe' is any person employed by or suffered or permitted to work for any employer." However, KRS 337.010(2) states in pertinent part as follows:

(2) As used in KRS 337.275 to 337.325, 337.345 and 337.385 to 337.405, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a) 'employe' is any person employed by or suffered or permitted to work for an employer, but shall not include:

....

(ii) any individual employed in a bonafide executive, administrative, supervisory or professional capacity, or in the capacity of outside...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
10 cases
  • Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • August 25, 2005
    ... ... 3. Rest.2d Torts s. 920 (1979) ... 4. Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Corothers, 65 S.W. 833, 834 (Ky.1901); Barr. v. Searcy, 280 Ky. 535, 133 .W.2d 714, 715 (1939) ... 5. See Baptist Healthcare Sys. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676 (Ky 2005); Schwartz v. Hasty, 175 S.W.3d 621 (Ky.2005) ... 6 ... ...
  • Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation, No. 2003-SC-0708-DG (KY 2/23/2006)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • February 23, 2006
    ...defective scaffolding erected not by the owner but by the independent general contractor. Simmons, 426 S.W.2d at 931; Page 6 Clemons, 715 S.W.2d at 246. The fatal explosion in Jennings was caused by the negligence of employees of the independent contractor, not the owner. Jennings, 145 S.W.......
  • Hackney v. Lincoln Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 15-5563
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 2, 2016
    ...case likewise calls for relief under § 337.385. (Appellant Br. at 31-32 (citing Ky. Rev. Stat. §337.010(1); Healthcare of Louisville v. Kiesel, 715 S.W.2d 246 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)).) In Healthcare of Louisville v. Kiesel, the plaintiff, the medical director of a healthcare company, sued his ......
  • Katter v. Payne
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 2013
  • Get Started for Free