Opinion ID: 2541918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allegations Regarding the AOC at the Board of Claims Level

Text: Appellants and Appellees have made various allegations regarding the designation of King and Judge Winchester as employees of the AOC. Although the Court does not consider the resolution of this appeal to turn upon which party either first or more emphatically asserted that King and Judge Winchester were employees of the AOC, the Court briefly sifts through the competing allegations because the parties expend considerable effort in arguing the point. Further, some discussion of the issue may clarify the principles which are dispositive of this appeal. Appellants assert that their claims were filed against the Commonwealth based on its waiver of immunity through the Board of Claims Act for King's and Judge Winchester's failure to perform the duties of their official capacities. (Emphasis added.) The claim forms submitted by Appellants, which they maintain were provided to them by the Board, included a section designated Name of State Agency involved with the incident (employee's name, if known). Appellants, in their completion of the form, stated: Administrative Office of the Court [sic] 1) Charles E. King former Master Commissioner of the McCreary Circuit Court 2) Judge Jerry Winchester of the McCreary Circuit Court (Emphasis added.) Appellants point to the Board's responses to the claims on September 15, 2003, which stated that [a] copy of your claim and all of the information you have provided the Board is being forwarded to the Administrative Office of the Courts. The record establishes that the Board directed a letter to the AOC on that same date assigning the claim to the AOC, with the Board directing that [y]our agency shall file its answer with the board and shall submit a copy of the answer to the claimant. AOC answered the consolidated claims of the heirs on October 10, 2003. For its part, the AOC argues that various statements identified in its own filings were merely recognitions of the Appellants' filings and that [t]he suggestion that King and Winchester were employed by AOC originated entirely from the Appellants, not from AOC. Appellants retort that, as an example of the AOC's acknowledgement that it was the employer of King and Judge Winchester, the AOC, in its Answer, pleaded that this pleading is filed on behalf of [Judge Winchester and King] and their state employer, AOC. It should suffice to say that both parties have made allegations in claim forms or pleadings which allege explicitly or implicitly that the AOC is the employer of King and Judge Winchester. Regardless, the Court does not consider these arguments to contribute toward its decision of this case. For the reasons stated hereafter, the Court looks to the Kentucky Constitution and relevant statutes for its determination regarding whether Judge Winchester is an employee of the AOC, and finds that the factual circumstances of the case make a decision on this point regarding King moot and unnecessary.