Yates v. Benningfield

• Decision Date: 01 March 2013
• Docket Number: NO. 2012-CA-000154-MR,2012-CA-000154-MR
• Citation: Yates v. Benningfield, NO. 2012-CA-000154-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar 01, 2013)
• Parties: EDDIE YATES APPELLANT v. RICK BENNINGFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JAILER, TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY; EDDIE ROGERS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE EXECUTIVE, TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY; AND TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY APPELLEES
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

EDDIE YATESAPPELLANT

v.RICK BENNINGFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JAILER,TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY; EDDIE ROGERS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE EXECUTIVE,TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY; AND TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKYAPPELLEES

NO. 2012-CA-000154-MR

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

RENDERED: MARCH 1, 2013

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE DAN KELLY, JUDGE

ACTIONNO. 10-CI-00307

OPINION

AFFIRMING

BEFORE: MAZE, MOORE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Eddie Yates brings this appeal from a December 1, 2011, summary judgment of the Taylor Circuit Court dismissing Yates's claims against Rick Benningfield, individually and in his official capacity as Jailer, Taylor County, Kentucky; Eddie Rogers, in his official capacity as Judge Executive, Taylor County, Kentucky; and Taylor County, Kentucky (hereinafter collectively referred to as appellees) upon the basis of immunity.We affirm.

Yates was an inmate at the Taylor County Regional Jail.While so incarcerated, Yates fell and suffered an injury to his hand on July 24, 2009.The next day, on July 25, the record indicates that a nurse examined Yates's hand, ordered 800 mg of ibuprofen to be taken twice daily, and scheduled an x-ray.Three days later, on July 27, an x-ray revealed that Yates suffered an acute oblique fracture of the fourth metacarpal of his hand.Thereafter, Yates was released from the Taylor County Jail on July 30 and was informed of a scheduled appointment with orthopedics at Taylor Regional Hospital.

Subsequently, Yates filed a complaint against Rick Benningfield, individually and in his official capacity as Jailer, Taylor County, Kentucky; Eddie Rogers, in his official capacity as Judge Executive, Taylor County, Kentucky; and Taylor County, Kentucky.Therein, Yates claimed that he did not receive proper medical care for his broken hand while incarcerated at Taylor County Jail.In particular Yates alleged:

7.At all times material hereto, Defendant Jailer failed to enact or promulgate sufficient policies or procedures or employed a custom of violating his ownpolicies and procedures, and failed to properly equip, staff, hire, train, re-train and supervise competent administrators, officers and health care providers, whose job it was to confine, segregate, supervise and care for, and provide medical services to, pretrial detainees generally, and Rick Benningfield specifically, resulting in the conduct described below.

8.At all times hereto, Defendants County, County Judge Executive and Jailer were under a duty to provide health care services to detainees housed in the jail facility.Furthermore, at all times material hereto, said Defendants assumed responsibility for the health, safety, well-being, supervision and care of and provision of medical services to, pretrial detainees generally, and Eddie Yates specifically, at the jail facility.

. . . .

11.That at all times pertinent hereto, the Defendant was put on actual notice by the Plaintiff of his injury.Plaintiff's injury was extremely painful, and the Plaintiff was in need of emergency medical treatment.

12.In spite of the aforesaid notice, the Defendant ignored such notice and intentionally neglected the medical care required by the Plaintiff and such neglect and actions were ministerial as opposed to discretionary.

. . . .

17.That the Defendant, at all times pertinent hereto, had a legal obligation to provide the Plaintiff with adequate medical care which it neglected and refused to provide.

Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment.They sought dismissal of all claims upon the bases of qualified official immunity and of sovereign immunity.By summary judgment entered December 1, 2011, the circuit court grantedappellees' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.¹This appeal follows.

Yates claims that the circuit court erred by dismissing his claims based upon sovereign immunity and qualified official immunity.For the following reasons, we believe the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment dismissing all claims against appellees.

Summary judgment is proper where there exists no material issue of fact and movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure 56;Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476(Ky.1991).Generally, the issue of immunity presents a question of law; however, in this Commonwealth, the narrow issue of whether the public official acted in good faith so as to be entitled to qualified official immunity may present a factual question for the jury.Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510(Ky.2011).To resolve this appeal, it is necessary to address appellees' entitlement to sovereign immunity and qualified official immunity.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

In this Commonwealth, it is well-settled that some counties predated the existence of the State and that all counties are viewed as political subdivisions of the State entitled to the shield of sovereign immunity.Comair, Inc. v.Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91(Ky.2009).Sovereign immunity or governmental immunity may also be available to shield a public official when sued in his or her official capacity.Hamblen ex rel. Byars v. Ky. Cabinet For Health & Family Servs., 322 S.W.3d 511(Ky.2010).A public official named in his official capacity is entitled to the same immunity as enjoyed by the pertinent governmental entity.Id.Such immunity is extended to a public official because an action against an official in his official capacity is essentially an action against the governmental entity the official represents.Yanero, 65 S.W.3d 510.

In his complaint, Yates named Rick Benningfield in his official capacity as Jailer and Eddie Rogers in his official capacity as Judge Executive; Yates also named Taylor County.It is clear that Taylor County is cloaked with sovereign immunity, thus mandating dismissal of all claims against the county.As to Benningfield and Rogers in their respective official capacities, the jailer and judge executive are elected officers of the county and claims against a jailer and judge executive in their official capacities are essentially claims against the county.Commonwealth v. Harris, 59 S.W.3d 896(Ky.2001)(holding that claims against a jailer in his official capacity are tantamount to claims against the county).So, Benningfield and Rogers in their respective official capacities are also entitled to sovereign immunity.Accordingly, we conclude that all claims against Taylor County, Benningfield, in his official capacity, and Rogers, in his official capacity, are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY

In his complaint, Yates also named Benningfield in his individual capacity.²A public official sued in his individual capacity may be entitled to claim qualified official immunity.To be entitled to the shield of qualified official immunity, the public official must be performing a discretionary act as opposed to a ministerial act.A ministerial act is generally "one that requires only obedience to the orders of...