Court Opinion

ID: 9940844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 16:06:58.775637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:53.912074
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2024
                                                            TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                2022-SC-0354-DG

HUGH KEITH MCWHORTER;                                                  APPELLANTS
AND CAROL MCWHORTER

                    ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
                             NO. 2021-CA-0844
V.                FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 21-CI-00532

BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.                                           APPELLEE
D/B/A BAPTIST HEALTH LEXINGTON

                 OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CONLEY

                                     AFFIRMING

      Keith McWhorter and his wife, Carol, filed a lawsuit 1 against Baptist

Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Baptist Health Lexington (BHL). BHL filed a

motion to dismiss arguing that the McWhorters failed to file a certificate of

merit as required by KRS 2 411.167. The trial court dismissed the case with

prejudice, which the McWhorters appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the

dismissal of the trial court. McWhorter then filed a motion for discretionary

      1 Keith’s claim alleged medical negligence, while Carol’s claim was based on loss

of consortium.
      2 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
review with this Court which we granted. Upon review, we hereby affirm the

Court of Appeals. 3

                      I.     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

      The Kentucky General Assembly passed House Bill 429 (HB 429) in

2019, which became effective on June 27, 2019. This law was passed in order

to ease the perceived burden on medical providers from meritless lawsuits. It

was codified as KRS 411.167. On February 17, 2021, the McWhorters filed

their complaint but did not include a certificate of merit. BHL filed an answer

on March 3, 2021. On May 25, 2021, BHL filed a motion to dismiss on the

grounds the McWhorters failed to comply with KRS 411.167 by omitting to file

a certificate of merit with the complaint. In response, the McWhorters

requested additional time in which to file a certificate of merit. The McWhorters

argued KRS 411.167(2)(b) 4 permits a court to grant an extension to file a

certificate of merit upon a showing of good cause. The McWhorters belatedly

filed a certificate of merit on June 3, 2021. After a hearing held on June 11, the

trial court issued an order entered on June 21, 2021, denying the McWhorters’

      3 This case addresses the same issues as Sanchez v. McMillin, M.D., et al., 2022-

SC-0272-DG, 2022-SC-0274-DG, which was heard the same day. Therefore, this
opinion treads similar ground.
        4 “The claimant was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph (a)

of this subsection because a limitation of time established by KRS Chapter 413 would
bar the action and that the consultation could not reasonably be obtained before that
time expired. An affidavit or declaration executed pursuant to this paragraph shall be
supplemented by an affidavit or declaration pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
subsection or paragraph (c) of this subsection within sixty (60) days after service of the
complaint or the suit shall be dismissed unless the court grants an extension for good
cause[.]”
                                            2
requested extension of time and ordering the complaint dismissed with

prejudice.

       The McWhorters filed a timely appeal where the Court of Appeals heard

the case. At the Court of Appeals, the McWhorters abandoned their previous

argument before the trial court that KRS 411.167(2)(b) permitted an extension

of time to file a certificate of merit. Instead, the McWhorters argued that they

had complied under KRS 411.167(7). 5 The McWhorters also argued, at the

Court of Appeals but not at the trial court, that the defendants waived the

certificate of merit argument by not including it in their initial answer. The

Court of Appeals addressed the McWhorters’ argument but held that in order

to comply with KRS 411.167(7), the plaintiff must file the information with the

complaint. The Court of Appeals also held that the defendant did not waive the

certificate of merit issue. The McWhorters filed a motion for discretionary

review, which we then granted. We now address the appeal.

                                        II.     ANALYSIS

       The McWhorters argue in their briefs before this Court that they

complied with the requirements imposed by KRS 411.167 both technically and

substantially under subsection 7. They further argue that BHL failed to raise

the McWhorters’ purported failure to file a certificate of merit as a defense in

BHL’s answer. Therefore, they insist, the issue should be considered waived.

Also, they claim that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the

       5 “The claimant, in lieu of serving a certificate of merit, may provide the defendant or

defendants with expert information in the form required by the Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure. Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of any ‘consulting’ or nontrial expert,
except as expressly stated in this section.”

                                                3
McWhorters to file the certificate of merit late under CR 6 6.02. Lastly, the

McWhorters allude to the unconstitutionality of KRS 411.167, should this

Court not interpret the statute in their favor.

      As noted above, the only issue raised before the trial court was that the

McWhorters had indeed complied under KRS 411.167(2)(b). Furthermore, the

McWhorters completely abandoned this argument both before the Court of

Appeals and now before this Court. Of the remaining issues, only the

McWhorter’s claim that they complied with subsection 7 by supplying expert

information as contemplated by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure and the

issue of waiver were even raised before the Court of Appeals. 7

      The Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant to

include:

      An argument conforming to the statement of points and
      authorities, with ample references to the specific location in the
      record and citations of authority pertinent to each issue of law and
      which shall contain at the beginning of the argument a
      statement with reference to the record showing whether the
      issue was properly preserved for review and, if so, in what
      manner.

RAP 32(A)(4) (emphasis added). The McWhorters included in their brief, in a

footnote, a statement claiming that these issues were preserved and cited to

      6 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

      7 This Court’s conclusion that the issue of waiver was raised before the Court of

Appeals is generous considering that this issue was lumped in with McWhorters claim
of compliance under KRS 411.167(7).

                                          4
the record. 8 Upon review of the record, these arguments before the trial court

pertain solely to Appellant’s request for an extension of time under KRS

411.167(2)(b) and not any other issue.

      As this Court has consistently held, “A basic general principle of the

Rules of Civil Procedure is that a party is not entitled to raise an error on

appeal if he has not called the error to the attention of the trial court and given

that court an opportunity to correct it.” S.T. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs.,

585 S.W.3d 769, 777 (Ky. App. 2019) (citing Little v. Whitehouse, 384 S.W.2d

503, 504 (Ky. 1964)).

      Therefore, we must conclude that none of the issues the McWhorters

have raised before this Court are properly preserved, so we will not consider

them. It should be noted however, that if the McWhorters argument claiming

compliance under KRS 411.167(7) had been properly before this Court, we

would hold, as we have in our contemporaneously rendered opinion Sanchez v

McMillin, M.D., et al., 2022-SC-0272-DG, 2022-SC-0274-DG, that in order to

comply under KRS 411.167(7), a plaintiff must file this information with the

complaint.

                                III.     CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, we hereby affirm the Court of Appeals, albeit on

different grounds as set forth herein.

      8 Here we quote from the McWhorters’ brief: “Appellant preserved their
arguments by way of oral argument on Baptist Health’s Motion to Dismiss and their
Motion for an Extension of Time, See VR 6/11/21 9:09:36.”
                                          5
VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, and Nickell, JJ., sitting. All

concur. Thompson, J., not sitting.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS:

David M. Cross
Law Office of David M. Cross

Donald L. Wilkerson, III
Hoover & Associates Law Office

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:

Jeffery T. Barnett
Kimberly G. DeSimone
Barnett Benvenuti & Butler PLLC

COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, KENTUCKY JUSTICE ASSOCIATION:

Kevin C. Burke
Jamie K. Neal
Burke Neal PLLC

COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY:

Matthew F. Kuhn
Solicitor General

Jenna M. Lorence
Assistant Solicitor General

                                         6