Filed: May 01, 2015
Latest Update: May 01, 2015
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION COMBS , Judge . Timothy Gregory appeals the orders of the Wayne Circuit Court which denied his claims against the Wayne County Detention Center and the Kentucky Department of Corrections. After our review, we affirm. Only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary for this appeal. In June 2012, Gregory was an inmate of the Detention Center. While on work detail, he sustained a shoulder injury. The Detention Center did not provide medical treatment for the inj
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION COMBS , Judge . Timothy Gregory appeals the orders of the Wayne Circuit Court which denied his claims against the Wayne County Detention Center and the Kentucky Department of Corrections. After our review, we affirm. Only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary for this appeal. In June 2012, Gregory was an inmate of the Detention Center. While on work detail, he sustained a shoulder injury. The Detention Center did not provide medical treatment for the inju..
More
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
COMBS, Judge.
Timothy Gregory appeals the orders of the Wayne Circuit Court which denied his claims against the Wayne County Detention Center and the Kentucky Department of Corrections. After our review, we affirm.
Only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary for this appeal. In June 2012, Gregory was an inmate of the Detention Center. While on work detail, he sustained a shoulder injury. The Detention Center did not provide medical treatment for the injury, and Gregory has suffered from permanent complications.
Following his release from custody, on June 10, 2013, Gregory filed a complaint against the Wayne County Detention Center seeking damages to compensate him for his injury. On June 28, 2013, Gregory filed an amended complaint and sought to add the Kentucky Department of Corrections as a defendant. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss; the court granted the motions on December 17, 2013. This appeal followed.
The trial court granted the Detention Center's motion to dismiss based on a finding of sovereign immunity. Whether a party is protected by immunity is a question of law; therefore, our review is de novo. Estate of Clark ex. rel. Mitchell v. Daviess County, 105 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Ky. App. 2003).
The doctrine of immunity is "a bedrock component" of our law. Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Green's Motorcycle Salvage, Inc., 286 S.W.3d 790, 799 (Ky. 2009). It prohibits lawsuits against the "state, legislators, prosecutors, judges, and others doing the essential work of the state." Autry v. Western Kentucky Univ., 219 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Ky. 2007). Our Supreme Court has specifically applied sovereign immunity to detention centers. Bryant v. Pulaski County Detention Center, 330 S.W.3d 461 (Ky. 2011).
Gregory's appeal acknowledges the state of the law. However, he asks us to "carve out an exception" to the law of sovereign immunity. We cannot do so. First, Gregory has not cited any legal authority to provide a basis for an exception. See Kentucky Rule[s] of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.12(4)(c)(v) (arguments must be supported by ample references to legal authority). See also Harris v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 117, 130-31 (Ky. 2012) (It is not the function or responsibility of the Court to research and argue for a party).
More importantly, however, we note that this Court is not permitted to create exceptions or to deviate from firmly established law. We are rigidly bound by Supreme Court precedent. "Of course, as an intermediate appellate court, this Court is bound by established precedents of the Kentucky Supreme Court. SCR 1.030(8)(a). The Court of Appeals cannot overrule the established precedent set by the Supreme Court or its predecessor court." Smith v. Vilvarajah, 57 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Ky. App. 2000). Therefore, we must uphold the dismissal of the Detention Center pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
As for the Department of Corrections, the trial court granted its motion without stating a specific reason. However, Gregory has not addressed his claims against the Department, nor has he cited any precedent that would bar its dismissal.
Even when briefs have been filed, a reviewing court will generally confine itself to errors pointed out in the briefs and will not search the record for errors. An appellant's failure to discuss particular errors in his brief is the same as if no brief at all had been filed on those issues. Consequently, the trial court's determination of those issues not briefed upon appeal is ordinarily affirmed.
Milby v. Mears, 580 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Ky. App. 1979) (internal citations omitted).
We affirm the Wayne Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
