Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Commonwealth, Kentucky Board of Nursing v. Sullivan University System, Inc.
Citations: 433 S.W.3d 341; 2014 WL 2778349; 2014 Ky. LEXIS 231Docket: No. 2012-SC-000622-DG
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court; June 19, 2014; Kentucky; State Supreme Court
The Kentucky Board of Nursing appeals a Court of Appeals decision, which found that the Board unreasonably interpreted and applied its regulations to the Sullivan University System, Inc. (Spencerian). The key issue is whether the case should be dismissed as moot since the regulation in question has been amended, and the new version no longer adversely affects Spencerian. Spencerian has operated an Applied Science in Nursing (ADN) Program since 2001 but consistently failed to meet the Board's evaluative standards, leading to its conditional approval status. In 2010, the Board downgraded Spencerian to probationary status due to a failure to maintain an eighty-five percent first-time pass rate on the nursing licensure exam in 2009. The regulation was amended in 2009 to clarify that the pass-rate requirement applied only to first-time test takers, a change intended to prevent the inclusion of retakers in the pass rate calculations. Spencerian challenged the Board’s downgrade in Jefferson Circuit Court, arguing that the Board improperly applied the new regulation retroactively. The Board contended that its interpretation of the regulation as applying to first-time test takers was longstanding and that the amendment merely clarified this interpretation. The circuit court sided with the Board, stating that Spencerian had not met the required pass rate for seven years. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the Board had incorrectly applied the amended regulations retroactively to events that occurred before the amendment. Spencerian made significant improvements to its Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) program during the appeal process, resulting in a 98% first-time pass rate on the nursing licensure exam for 2012. Consequently, the Board granted full approval status to the program on February 15, 2013, which it continues to hold. The appellate court must determine whether the case is moot, as it lacks jurisdiction over moot issues devoid of actual controversies. The court noted that it is required to dismiss appeals when circumstances prevent granting meaningful relief, as established in prior cases. Since Spencerian's ADN program has achieved full approval and is no longer on probation, the court found the case moot and without jurisdiction to provide relief. Furthermore, as Spencerian has not contested the current regulations and has not suffered any identifiable injury related to the Board's actions, the appeal was dismissed. The court also decided to vacate the lower courts' rulings to prevent any potential adverse legal consequences, exercising its authority to modify or vacate lower court judgments when necessary. Thus, the Board’s appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the case.