Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. v. U.S. Nursing Corporation
| Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. |
| U.S. Nursing Corporation |
| 7:2014cv00122 |
| July 29, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Pikeville Office |
| Letcher |
| Amul R. Thapar |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance) |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
385
OPINION AND ORDER: With this action, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. has been seeking indemnification for amounts it expended to defend and settle a state court action that was filed against it in 2008. After a trial in this Court on indemnif ication claim, a jury ruled in Appalachian's favor. The case is now before the Court on remand from 6CCA to determine if an error in one of Court's evidentiary rulings requires a new trial. The Court concludes it does not. Thus, the Cou rt's ruling precluding any such evidence did not affect U.S. Nursing's substantial rights. Justice does not require a new trial, setting aside the verdict, or otherwise disturbing the judgment entered in this case. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/24/2021. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
368
OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Appalachian Regional's motion 349 to alter judgment in this action to add prejudgment interest is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. the motion is GRANTED to extent that Appalachian Regional requests th at judgment be amended to add prejudgment interest of $470,760.96, which reflects prejudgment interest calculated at simple interest of 6 percent commencing on April 7, 2016 for the $2 million settlement payment to the Profitts and commenc ing on the later of February 21, 2011 or date of payment for defense costs incurred in the Profitt litigation; and b. motion is otherwise DENIED; and 2) Appalachian Regional's motion to recover attorney's fees 350 it incurred in this action is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 12/4/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
348
OPINION AND ORDER: U.S. Nursing's 315 motion to reconsider Court's May 23, 2018 ruling 306 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 7/2/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
314
OPINION AND ORDER: the objections (DE 178 ) are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/25/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
310
OPINION AND ORDER: Court now addresses various motions in limine and certain other motions filed by parties in preparation for trial. The Court's rulings are presented in attached chart. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/24/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Chart Addressing Court's Rulings) (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
307
OPINION AND ORDER: re Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc.'s motion to clarify 299 this Court's order that the trial be conducted in two phases. Court hereby ORDERS the motion is GRANTED. A clarification is provided below (See Order). Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/23/2018.(RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
293
OPINION AND ORDER: Appalachian's motion to exclude 188 certain opinions of Justice Lambert will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1) any testimony that U.S. Nursing did not breach its duty to defend Appalachian is EXCLUDED; 2) Justice Lambert's testimony regarding strength of the evidence against Nurse Foote is admitted solely to extent necessary to explain his opinion that settlement was not reasonable and will be limited accordingly; 3) Justice Lambert's opin ion that settlement was "entirely self-serving and unreasonable" and "driven by a desire to solely protect" Appalachian is EXCLUDED; 4) Justice Lambert may testify that any verdict against Appalachian based on Nurse Foote's conduct would likely have been reversed because of insufficient evidence that moving Profitt from truck to emergency room caused him to suffer any secondary injury; and 5) Appalachian's motion to exclude Justice Lambert from testifying as to any opinions not disclosed in his report or deposition is DENIED as premature. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/9/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
291
OPINION AND ORDER: U.S. Nursing's motion to exclude certain testimony by Appalachian expert Houlihan 193 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/8/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
286
OPINION AND ORDER: U.S. Nursing's motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Knight and Nurse Smith 192 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/7/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
284
OPINION AND ORDER: 1) U.S. Nursing's motion for summary judgment 190 on Appalachian's contractual indemnity claim (Count II) is DENIED; 2) U.S. Nursing's motion for summary judgment 191 is GRANTED in part and DENIE D in part as follows: a. The motion is GRANTED as to Appalachian's claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing in procuring insurance (Count III) and that claim is DISMISSED; and b. The motion is DENIED as to Appalachian's claim for breach of duty to defend (Count I). Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/4/2018. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: ARH's motion to alter or amend judgment, R. 31 , is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 3/12/2015. (TDA) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Dft's motion to dismiss, R. 16 , is GRANTED. (2) Pla's motions for reconsideration, R. 23 , a hearing, R. 26 , and leave to file a sur-reply, R. 26 , are DENIED AS MOOT. (3) This matter is STRICKEN from Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 11/18/2014. (RCB)cc: COR
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
