RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2021; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2019-CA-0782-MR

HASSEN ELMI; ABDULAHI 

HUSSEIN, A MINOR, BY HASSEN 

ELMI AS NATURAL FATHER AND 

NEXT FRIEND; FADUMO 

MOHAMED; HALIMO HUSSEIN; 

NADER GEORGE SHUNNARAH; 

RUWEDYN HUSSEIN; AND 

SOKOREY HUSSEIN 

APPELLANTS 

v. 

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE OLU A. STEVENS, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 17-CI-000385 

NEURO-ORTHO ASSOCIATES APPELLEE 

OPINION

REVERSING AND

REMANDING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND JONES, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Nader George Shunnarah, a Louisville attorney, appeals a 

judgment on the pleadings granted on May 1, 2019, by the Jefferson Circuit Court 
-2-

to Neuro-Ortho Associates (Neuro-Ortho). Shunnarah appeals the circuit court’s 

award to Neuro-Ortho of its attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,500.00 and 

interest on the judgment at 6% from April 9, 2015, through November 5, 2018. 

After our review, we reverse and remand. 

This matter is essentially a medical services billing dispute. However, 

Neuro-Ortho’s decision to bring a civil action against its patients’ attorney has 

complicated the matter. 

Shunnarah represented Hassen Elmi, Fadumo Mohamed, Halimo 

Hussein, Sokorey Hussein, Ruwedyn Hussein, and Abdulahi Hussein (referred to 

collectively as “the insureds”) in a personal injury action against Asho Omar and 

State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The action was 

filed after a car driven by Omar on January 23, 2015, struck an apartment building 

causing the insureds to suffer personal injuries. 

Neuro-Ortho provided medical care and treatment to Hassen Elmi, 

Halimo Hussein, and Sokorey Hussein from January 26 through April 9, 2015, 

resulting in fees of $8,763.00; $7,100.00; and $7,130.00, respectively; to Fadumo 

Mohamed from January 26 through April 21, 2015, resulting in a fee of $9,703.00; 

and to Ruwedyn Hussein and Abdulahi Hussein from January 26, through April 

23, 2015, resulting in fees of $5,075.00 and $5,215.00, respectively. Together, the 
-3-

medical bills totalled nearly $43,000.00. Neuro-Ortho submitted its billing 

statements for the treatment of the insureds to State Farm for payment. 

In mid-February 2015, Neuro-Ortho was made aware by State Farm 

that payment for its services had been directed to the insureds’ attorney. 

Consequently, State Farm made no payments to Neuro-Ortho for the medical care 

and treatment provided to the insureds. 

On July 6, 2016, Shunnarah filed a personal injury action against 

Omar and State Farm on behalf of the insureds. Shortly thereafter, Neuro-Ortho 

received correspondence from Shunnarah indicating that the insureds were 

challenging Neuro-Ortho’s billing statements. Shunnarah explained that the care 

and treatment provided by Neuro-Ortho “may not have been medically necessary” 

and may have been provided “in violation of chiropractic standards.” Shunnarah 

indicated that the “procedure you follow having a potential criminal [sic] make the 

referral to your company through an attorney, picking upon the patients, 

recommending treatment to exhaust the PIP coverage is in question.” He 

explained that other medical providers needed to be paid, and Elmi had lost wages 

which had to come from the no-fault coverage as well. Finally, Shunnarah 

indicated that he would “mostly likely” depose the medical providers so that they 

could “explain these issues.”
-4-

Neuro-Ortho responded immediately. It rejected Shunnarah’s 

insinuations and stated that it was not “interested in collecting anything on these 

cases, if criminal nexus is established between the attorney that referred these cases 

to us, his referral source, and ultimately your procurement of these clients.” A 

series of unpleasant exchanges continued, and in correspondence dated July 12, 

2016, Shunnarah indicated to Neuro-Ortho that he could no longer engage in 

verbal communication. The insureds’ claims against Omar and State Farm were 

settled. 

In October 2016, Neuro-Ortho corresponded again with Shunnarah 

“welcom[ing] any contact you may want to establish to negotiate balances without 

disparaging our practice. . . .” Neuro-Ortho requested that Shunnarah release to it 

the non-fault benefits received from State Farm for the insureds’ benefit or explain 

the basis upon which they were being withheld. 

In November 2016, Neuro-Ortho’s counsel corresponded with 

Shunnarah warning that if payment were not forthcoming, it would pursue a debt 

collection action against the insureds. Shunnarah responded days later. He 

explained that State Farm had provided to him “a statement Neural(sic)-Ortho 

overcharged my client over $12,000.00 dollars.” Records indicate that State Farm 

declined to reimburse the insureds for approximately $13,400.00 in medical bills 

submitted by Neuro-Ortho on various grounds, including: nonspecific coding 
-5-

entries; submission of duplicate coded entries; and entries for services provided 

where the treating physician had reduced or eliminated the need for the care or

treatment. As a result, Shunnarah intended to “submit his bills and medical records 

for peer review.” He anticipated having a response in 60 to 90 days. 

When the medical bills were not paid by January 23, 2017, NeuroOrtho filed the civil action underlying this appeal against Shunnarah and State 

Farm. It did not file a collections action against the insureds. 

In its complaint, Neuro-Ortho provided an account of each patient’s 

medical bills and alleged that Shunnarah had converted the insureds’ no-fault 

benefits received from State Farm to his own use. It also alleged that Shunnarah 

had committed fraud and misrepresentation by assuring State Farm that payment 

would be made for the medical care and treatment afforded the insureds; by 

assigning the insureds’ no-fault benefits to himself with no intention of paying 

their medical bills; and by using his position as a lawyer to direct State Farm to 

send the insureds’ no-fault benefits to himself. Neuro-Ortho alleged that despite its 

legal obligation to pay no-fault benefits to the care providers, State Farm had 

negligently made the benefits payable to Shunnarah, who wrongfully withheld 

them. 

Sunnarah answered the complaint. In his answer, Sunnarah explained 

that State Farm had paid approximately $30,000.00 (actually $32,562.19) in basic 
-6-

reparation benefits based upon the medical bills submitted by Neuro-Ortho 

(totaling $42,986.00) and that Neuro-Ortho had “refused to accept payment for the 

amount that State Farm provided.” Sunnarah filed a counterclaim alleging that 

Neuro-Ortho had attempted to extort money from him by threatening to file a 

complaint against him with the Kentucky Bar Association; attempted to practice a 

theft by deception by trying to collect the outstanding medical bills; engaged in 

insurance fraud and wrongful use of civil proceedings; and negligently breached its 

duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to his clients. 

Based upon State Farm’s payout of the disputed no-fault benefits, 

State Farm was dismissed from the action by way of an agreed order filed on June 

22, 2017. Neuro-Ortho filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

The insureds filed a motion to intervene. In their 50-page complaint, 

each of the intervening plaintiffs alleged a cause of action against Neuro-Ortho 

based upon the alleged attempted extortion perpetrated against Shunnarah by 

Neuro-Ortho when it threatened to file a bar complaint against him. They also 

alleged that they had suffered injuries and incurred damages as a result of NeuroOrtho’s alleged theft by deception, insurance fraud, intentional misrepresentation, 

negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violation of Kentucky’s Consumer 

Protection Act -- all arising from Neuro-Ortho’s alleged over-billing for their 

medical treatment. The motion to intervene was granted. 
-7-

Neuro-Ortho filed its answer to Sunnarah’s complaint. In its answer, 

Neuro-Ortho indicated that it lacked sufficient information to form a belief as to 

Sunnarah’s allegation that State Farm had not paid out sufficient no-fault benefits 

to cover the full amount of the outstanding balance of the medical bills submitted 

by Neuro-Ortho. It denied the other allegations. 

Neuro-Ortho also answered and denied the allegations included in the 

intervening complaint, and it filed a motion for summary judgment. Neuro-Ortho 

challenged the attempted extortion and theft by deception allegations on the basis 

that it had merely attempted to collect a debt. It also denied that the intervening 

plaintiffs had any interest in the complaint it filed against Shunnarah. Neuro-Ortho 

argued that it had not over-billed for services and included the affidavit of Dr. 

Robert W. Byrd, which indicated that the medical treatment provided was 

necessary and that its cost was reasonable. 

In August 2017, Neuro-Ortho filed a motion pursuant to provisions of 

the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) requesting that the sums held by 

Shunnarah -- $32,562.19 -- be paid into court. CR 67.02. By order entered on 

December 1, 2017, Sunnarah was directed to deposit into a court-appointed, 

interest-bearing bank account the no-fault benefits paid over to him by State Farm 

on behalf of the insureds. Nearly a year later, Neuro-Ortho filed a motion 

requesting the court release those funds because the parties agreed that the funds 
-8-

represented the amount owed to Neuro-Ortho for services rendered. The funds 

were promptly released to Neuro-Ortho. 

On January 8, 2019, summary judgment was entered against the 

insureds with respect to their claims, and Neuro-Ortho renewed its motion for 

judgment on the pleadings with respect to its claims against Shunnarah. Shunnarah 

filed a motion for summary judgment. 

In an order entered on May 1, 2019, the circuit court granted judgment 

on the pleadings to Neuro-Ortho and dismissed with prejudice all the claims 

asserted against Neuro-Ortho by Shunnarah and the intervening plaintiffs. 

Shunnarah was ordered to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,500.00; interest 

on the debt at 6% from April 9, 2015, through November 5, 2018; and court costs. 

This appeal followed.

Shunnarah argues that the circuit court erred by awarding attorney’s

fees, interest, and costs. He does not challenge the release to Neuro-Ortho of the 

funds that he had paid into court. Neuro-Ortho contends that the appeal must be 

dismissed because of Shunnarah’s failure to name State Farm as an appellee. 

Neuro-Ortho believes that State Farm is necessary to the appeal because Shunnarah 

characterized it in his brief as an indispensable party to the proceedings below. 

Shunnarah did not argue in his brief that State Farm is an 

indispensable party on appeal. On the contrary, he argues that because State Farm 
-9-

had already disbursed $32,562.19 in no-fault benefits in response to the medical 

bills submitted by Neuro-Ortho, it is not a necessary party to these proceedings. 

A notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction of only the named parties to 

the Court. City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954. 957 (Ky. 1990). 

Where judgment is entered in favor of multiple parties, each of those parties 

becomes a potential appellee. The appellant is not required to name them all, but 

he is required to name each party that is “necessary” to an adequate review and a 

proper disposition of the appeal. The Supreme Court of Kentucky announced in 

Kesler v. Shehan, 934 S.W.2d 254, 257 (Ky. 1996), that “a person is a necessary

party if the person would be a necessary party for further proceedings in the circuit 

court if the judgment were reversed.” Such persons are “regarded as 

indispensable[,]” because without them, disposition could prejudice the absent 

person “or those already parties[.]” CR 19.02; West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379, 

382 (Ky. 1992) (“The true meaning of ‘all necessary parties,’ [is] those persons 

whose interest would be divested by an adverse judgment.”).

Although State Farm was included as a defendant in the action filed 

by Neuro-Ortho, it had already been dismissed from the action by agreement of the 

parties when the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Neuro-Ortho. No part 

of our review is hindered by its absence, and State Farm would not be a necessary

party in any further proceedings in the circuit court if we reversed the judgment. 
-10-

Relief -- if any -- granted to Shunnarah would not involve State Farm. 

Consequently, State Farm is not a necessary party to this appeal. Dismissal of the 

appeal on this basis is not appropriate. 

Shunnarah argues that the circuit court erred by granting judgment on 

the pleadings that included an award for attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. We 

agree. 

Although Neuro-Ortho presented the insureds’ medical bills to State 

Farm, it had no direct right to satisfy any part of its bills from the insureds’ no-fault 

benefits. See Neurodiagnostics, Inc. v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 250 

S.W.3d 321 (Ky. 2008). The disbursement of no-fault benefits by an insurer is 

subject to statutory restrictions on their use. KRS1 304.39-040; KRS 304.39-

020(5); see also Medlin v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 419 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. App. 

2013). However, within the statutory parameters governing their use, injured 

insureds are expressly entitled to direct how their no-fault benefits are to be paid

out. See KRS 304.39-241. Despite Neuro-Ortho’s strong objection, an attorney’s 

management of his clients’ no-fault benefits pursuant to these provisions is both 

lawful and ethical. See Hughes and Coleman, PLLC v. Chambers, 526 S.W.3d 70 

(Ky. 2017). “Indeed, that practice seems almost integral to fully servicing a motorvehicle personal-injury client’s needs—it should be commended and 

 

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes. 
-11-

encouraged. . . .” Id. at 77. Under the circumstances outlined above, Neuro-Ortho 

had no viable claim against Shunnarah for his refusal to turn over the insureds’ nofault benefits upon demand of the care providers. Consequently, the circuit court 

erred by granting a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Neuro-Ortho that 

resulted in an award of attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.

We also note that Neuro-Ortho would not have been entitled to an 

award of its attorney’s fees in any event. In Kentucky, attorney’s fees are not

generally awarded to a prevailing party unless authorized by the provisions of a 

statute or provided for under the terms of a contract. Bell v. Commonwealth, 423

S.W.3d 742 (Ky. 2014). However, Neuro-Ortho contends that an award of 

attorney’s fees is appropriate in this case because it had a private right of action 

against Shunnarah under both our Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act and our 

Motor Vehicle Reparations Act.

The provisions of our Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act upon 

which Neuro-Ortho rely impose a duty of good faith and fair dealing upon an 

insurer to an insured. KRS 304.12-230; see also Knotts v. Zurich Ins. Co., 197 

S.W.3d 512 (Ky. 2006). The cited provisions of our Motor Vehicle Reparations 

Act explain the legislature’s intention to encourage prompt medical treatment of 

victims of motor vehicle accidents by providing for prompt payment of the cost of 

medical care; providing for the payment of interest in certain situations; and 
-12-

awarding attorney’s fees to an insured if an insurance company fails to pay basic 

reparation benefits on a timely basis. KRS 304.39-010(3); KRS 304.39-220. 

Although none of these provisions governs Shunnarah’s obligations or his conduct

in this case, Neuro-Ortho argues that the provisions supply the basis for a private

right of action against him under KRS 446.070 and that an award of its attorney’s

fees is thereby authorized. 

 The circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees could not be affirmed on

this basis. KRS 446.070 permits “[a] person injured by the violation of any

statute” to sue for “such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation. . . .” 

The provision applies “only if the alleged offender has violated a statute and the

plaintiff was in the class of persons which that statute was intended to protect.” 

Ford v. Fuller, 439 S.W.3d 173, 177 (Ky. App. 2014) (quoting Davidson v.

American Freightways, Inc., 25 S.W.3d 94, 100 (Ky. 2000)). 

In its complaint, Neuro-Ortho did not seek damages under the

provisions of KRS 446.070 for Shunnarah’s violation of any part of the Unfair 

Claims Settlement Practices Act or the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. NeuroOrtho’s civil action included only a claim for conversion and allegations that 

Shunnarah had committed fraud and misrepresentation by convincing State Farm 

to direct the payment of no-fault benefits to him. These common law claims do 

not encompass an award for attorney’s fees.
-13-

Nor would an award be justified upon principles of equity. In Seeger

v. Lanham, 542 S.W.3d 286 (Ky. 2018), the Supreme Court of Kentucky held 

specifically that a circuit court does not have any power in equity to award 

attorney’s fees. Consequently, in the absence of a contractual or statutory basis,

attorney’s fees may only be awarded as a sanction. Id. at 295. An award of 

attorney’s fees as a sanction is appropriate only where the integrity of the court is 

at issue. Id. 

Where attorney’s fees are appropriate as a sanction, such a result is 

not for the benefit of the individual plaintiff but rather is due to the fact that there 

has been an affront to the authority of the court. Bell, supra. For example, 

attorney’s fees may be awarded under CR 11 where a pleading has been filed for 

an improper purpose; under CR 37.02 for failing to comply with a court order; and 

in a contempt action because the conduct undermined the authority of the court. 

Id. The integrity of the court was not in question in this case, and the award of 

attorney’s fees could not be affirmed on that basis. 

Therefore, we are compelled to REVERSE the judgment of the 

Jefferson Circuit Court and to REMAND this case for entry of an order consistent 

with our Opinion.

ALL CONCUR.
-14-

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Greg Butram

Louisville, Kentucky

Nader George Shunnarah

Louisville, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Grover S. Cox

Louisville, Kentucky