Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 311

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.555

Legislative declaration of policy -- Standards for judicial review

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the declared policy of the General Assembly of Kentucky that the practice of medicine and osteopathy should be regulated and controlled as provided in KRS 311.530 to 311.620 in order to prevent empiricism and to protect the health and safety of the public. Further, the General Assembly of Kentucky has created the board, as defined in KRS 311.530, to function as an independent board, the majority of whose members are licensed physicians, with the intent that such a peer group is best qualified to regulate, control and otherwise discipline the licensees who practice medicine and osteopathy within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In furtherance of this intent, the judiciary of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who may be caused to review the actions of the board, shall not interfere or enjoin the board's actions until all administrative remedies are exhausted, and modify, remand, or otherwise disturb those actions only in the event that the action of the board: (1) Constitutes a clear abuse of its discretion; (2) Is clearly beyond its legislative delegated authority; or (3) Violated the procedure for disciplinary action as described in KRS 311.591. Effective: July 15, 1994 History: Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 190, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1994. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 251, sec. 8, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 252, effective July 1, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 107, sec. 2, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 150, sec. 2, effective June 19, 1952.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Williams v. Commonwealth
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Commonwealth (2006) ky · cites it 2× “, KRS § 311.555 ("It is the declared policy of the General Assembly of Kentucky that the practice of medicine and osteopathy should be regulated and controlled .”
Parrish v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure (2004) kyctapp · cites it 2× “17 Pursuant to KRS 311.555, a reviewing court may disturb the actions of the Board only if the Board’s action (1) constitutes a clear abuse of its discretion; (2) is clearly beyond its legislatively delegated authority; or (3) violated the procedures for disciplinary action as…”
Urella v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure (1997) ky “While submitting to the trial court and Court of Appeals that KRS 311.555 2 and the often cited “substan *874 tial evidence” test of Fuller, supra, encompass the appropriate standard of review, Urella ultimately challenges whether the Fuller test is compatible with Section 2 of…”
Dawson v. Birenbaum (1998) ky “” KRS 311.555. The procedural framework the Board must follow for investigating and disciplining licensed medical doctors is established in KRS 311.”
Abul-Ela v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure (2006) kyctapp · cites it 2× “The courts may only disturb the Board’s actions if they: (1) constitute a clear abuse of its discretion; (2) are clearly beyond its delegated authority; or (3) violate the procedure for disciplinary action as described in KRS 311.”
Suresh Kodali, M.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure (2021) kyctapp “” KRS 311.555. Judicial review of the Board’s decisions is limited.”
Charles R. Noplis, II, M.D. v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure (2022) kyctapp “KRS 311.555. -12- Judicial review of the Board’s decisions is narrowly circumscribed.”
Diane White v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., D/B/A Baptist Health Lexington, F/K/A Central Baptist Hospital (2024) kyctapp “KRS 311.555. White alleges she may pursue her claim because Zavos is not a “licensee” under the statute.”
Baptist Health Medical Group, Inc. v. John Mitchell Farmer, M.D. (2024) kyctapp “” KRS 311.555. In KRS Chapters 13B and 311, the legislature set forth a comprehensive framework for the Board’s conduct in those matters.”
Kitchens, Jr. v. National Board of Medical Examiners (2025) kyed “§ 311.555 ; accord Conrad v. Beshear, No.”
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.