(1) A person who has served as an investigator or prosecutor in an administrative
hearing or in its preadjudicative stage shall not serve as hearing officer or assist or
advise a hearing officer in the same proceeding. This shall not be construed as
preventing a person who has participated as a hearing officer in a determination of
probable cause or other equivalent preliminary determination from serving as a
hearing officer in the same proceeding.
(2) (a) A hearing officer, agency head, or member of an agency head who is serving
as a hearing officer shall voluntarily disqualify himself and withdraw from any
case in which he cannot afford a fair and impartial hearing or consideration.
Any party may request the disqualification of a hearing officer, agency head,
or member of the agency head by filing an affidavit, upon discovery of facts
establishing grounds for a disqualification, stating the particular grounds upon
which he claims that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be accorded. A
request for the disqualification of a hearing officer shall be answered by the
agency head within sixty (60) days of its filing. The request for
disqualification and the disposition of the request shall be a part of the official
record of the proceeding. Requests for disqualification of a hearing officer
shall be determined by the agency head. Requests for disqualification of a
hearing officer who is a member of the agency head shall be determined by
the majority of the remaining members of the agency head.
(b) Grounds for disqualification of a hearing officer shall include, but shall not be
limited to, the following:
1. Serving as an investigator or prosecutor in the proceeding or the
preadjudicative stages of the proceeding;
2. Participating in an ex parte communication which would prejudice the
proceedings;
3. Having a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding; or
4. Having a personal bias toward any party to a proceeding which would
cause a prejudgment on the outcome of the proceeding.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended
1996 Ky. Acts ch. 318, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1996. -- Created 1994 Ky. Acts ch.
382, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1996.
Notes of Decisions
Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1998).
· cites it 2× “case for further proceedings if it finds the agency's final order is: (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious,…”
Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
louisville/jefferson v. Tdc Grp., 283 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. 2009).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Norsworthy v. Kentucky Bd. of Med. Licensure (KBML), 330 S.W.3d 58 (Ky. 2009).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Louisville Edible Oil Prods., Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky, 957 S.W.2d 272 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Commonwealth, Labor Cabinet v. Hasken, 265 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Morgan v. Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 6 S.W.3d 833 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Allen v. Kentucky Horse Racing Auth., 136 S.W.3d 54 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).
“agency’s statutory authority, was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion, was based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Geupel Constr. Co. v. Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, 136 S.W.3d 43 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex-parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Revenue Cabinet v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 203 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.040(2) — 28 cases
Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1998).
“case for further proceedings if it finds the agency's final order is: (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious,…”
Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
louisville/jefferson v. Tdc Grp., 283 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. 2009).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
Norsworthy v. Kentucky Bd. of Med. Licensure (KBML), 330 S.W.3d 58 (Ky. 2009).
“agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.040(2)(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.