Therefore, this appeal is subject to dismissal because Elizabeth's counsel is a real party in interest and an indispensable party.

Failure to name an indispensable party is fatal to an appeal. 2006) (court holding that “ policy of strict compliance governs the time within which an appellant must invoke the court's jurisdiction, naming all indispensable parties”) Commonwealth v. 1990), the Supreme Court held that the policy of strict compliance, rather than substantial compliance, applied to the naming of indispensable parties in the notice of appeal. In the leading case of City of Devondale v. In this case, the attorney's fees were not awarded only to Elizabeth rather the circuit court ordered the attorney's fees to be paid directly to Elizabeth's counsel subject to enforcement in his own name. The logic of this principle applies as well to fees awarded only to the client under KRS 403.220.” 52 S.W.3d at 519 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court in Neidlinger further stated, “Louisville Label,, specifically held that unless the fee is awarded directly to the attorney, the client, as the primary obligor of the fee, is the real party in interest and the only indispensable party to the appeal. 270, 168 S.W.2d 738 (1943) (indicating that an award of attorney's fees directly to the attorney made him a party to the litigation)). 2001), the Kentucky Supreme Court stated, “f the ‘reasonable amount’ is ordered paid directly to the attorney, the attorney ‘may enforce the order in his own name’ and, thus is the real party in interest and a necessary and indispensable party to any appeal from that order.” See also Hutchinson v. Said sum shall be paid within sixty (60) days of entry of this Order and paid directly to counsel for who shall be permitted to enforce this portion of the Order as though in his name.” In the Notice of Appeal, James failed to name Elizabeth's counsel as a party to the appeal. On April 27, 2016, the Jefferson Circuit Court entered an Order, which stated: “Thus, the Court orders to pay the sum of $5,000.00 to representing attorney's fees and costs herein. Elizabeth Fink, the appellee, did not respond to the show cause order. On September 30, 2016, James filed a document titled “Appellant's Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal and Response to the SeptemShow Cause Order,” and tendered an Amended Notice of Appeal. On September 15, 2016, this Court directed James Michael Fink, the appellant, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failing to name an indispensable party to this appeal. 2016-CA-000797-MR Decided: December 22, 2016īEFORE: COMBS, THOMPSON AND VANMETER, JUDGESĪTTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Allen McKee Dodd, Louisville, Kentucky ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: J. More questions? You can always contact us.JAMES MICHAEL FINK APPELLANT v. Always check with your doctor before making any decisions.

It may also be skewed towards procedures more common among Medicare beneficiaries than the general population.Ī lack of detection does not necessarily mean a lack of expertise, just that it was not visible within this dataset. The data is limited to Medicare beneficiaries, meaning that physicians that do not accept Medicare (<10% of all physicians) will be excluded.

While this data can provide a wealth of knowledge, it comes with certain limitations. These procedures go into this section in order to help consumers make more informed choices. Using this data, we can detect when doctors perform certain procedures more frequently than similar providers. It includes aggregate information about the procedures performed by different providers. This feature uses Medicare data to determine how often a provider performs a procedure relative to other providers in their state also performing the same procedure.ĭata in this section is calculated using Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Data, which provides records of Medicare utilization throughout the United States. This section highlights the procedures that Dr.

Jim fink review