Suing for health freedom in Kentucky

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION ___

CASE NO. 13-CI-__________

 

DAVID ADAMS                                                                                           PLAINTIFF

 

v.                                                         COMPLAINT

 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                   DEFENDANTS

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Steven L. Beshear

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,

Sharon P. Clark

Serve: Governor Steven L. Beshear

Office of the Governor

700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100

Frankfort KY 40601

 

Serve: Commissioner Sharon P. Clark

Department of Insurance

215 W. Main

Frankfort KY 40601

Serve: Attorney General Jack Conway

Office of the Attorney General

700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118

Frankfort KY 40601

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff, David Adams, respectfully states as follows:

 

NATURE OF ACTION

This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to KRS 304.1-120(7), a statute regulating health insurance in the Commonwealth. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that this statute is unconstitutional in that it violates Sections 2 and 190 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Further, Plaintiff seeks a court order forbidding Defendants from enforcing the statute’s arbitrary provisions which limit Plaintiff’s clear understanding of rights under an agreement with a private corporation regulated by KRS 304.1-120(7). Attorney General Jack Conway is being served with a copy of this Complaint pursuant to KRS.418.075 in as much as the constitutionality of KRS. 304.1-120(7) is brought into question.

 

FACTS

Plaintiff is a citizen of the Commonwealth and a member of Samaritan Ministries, a religious health sharing organization purportedly exempted from state insurance regulation by KRS 304.1-120(7) and from federal mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in Section 1501 of that law under the heading “Health Care Sharing Ministry.”

The federal PPACA law, in an attempt to expand healthcare coverage choices for Americans, makes few unnecessary restrictions on the ongoing operations of such health sharing groups. Kentucky law, however, declares these entities must have “no assumption of risk or promise to pay either among the participants or between the participants and the organization.”

These restrictions defeat the purpose of the health sharing organizations, which exist to limit personal liability for healthcare expenses by sharing mutual assumptions of risk and multiple payment agreements involving explicit promises to pay. Enforcement of state law in regard to this type of entity and arrangement has been haphazard and reckless, substantially depriving consumers fleeing government regulated insurance of a rational basis upon which to make risk management decisions and perpetuating an arbitrary and capricious application of state law in violation of the Section 2 prohibition of “absolute and arbitrary power” and the Section 190 limit on state regulation of corporations to “general laws” only.

Time is of the essence in resolving this issue because the PPACA is set to take full effect on January 1, 2014 with substantial premium increases in government-regulated health insurance and very limited alternatives such as religious health sharing for Kentucky consumers generally and Plaintiff specifically to properly manage healthcare costs. Lack of clarity in the application of the law is both expensive and needlessly hazardous.

ARGUMENT

Existing statute and case law combine to wreak havoc on the market for health coverage in the United States and in Kentucky. If followed to the letter, state law would eliminate the alternative of religious health sharing organizations in the Commonwealth, despite efforts on the federal and state level to preserve such alternatives for the benefits they provide to the health and welfare of their members, and the safety valve they form for consumers who would otherwise be trapped in the government-created and controlled system as it fails increasingly large segments of the population.

Plaintiff merely seeks clarity from government officials where precious little currently exists. The only way to achieve that is with a court ruling that KRS 304.1-120(7) unconstitutionally singles out and inhibits religious health sharing groups and their members from protecting themselves efficiently against the risk of large medical expenses. Such is certainly not within the bounds of any kind of public purpose envisioned by the legislature as the people’s representatives and therefore calls for swift action from the Court.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to KRS 418.040 and Kentucky Constitution Section 112 (5).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            Plaintiff seeks a Court ruling that KRS 304.1-120(7) is unconstitutional in that it effectively prohibits the existence of Plaintiff’s chosen health care coverage provider whose operation is both legal under federal law and has been found constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Legislative action in the 2013 General Assembly (Senate Bill 3) in conjunction with a July 23, 2013 order from this court sought to clarify availability of religious health sharing options but did not address the statute’s constitutional infirmities. Such is the purpose of this action.

 

Respectfully submitted,


David Adams
121 Nave Place
Nicholasville, KY 40356
859-537-5372
kyprogress@yahoo.com

Plaintiff
 
 


   
This certifies the forgoing was served this ____ day of __________, 2013 via U.S. Mail upon:


Serve: Governor Steven L. Beshear
Office of the Governor
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601

Serve: Commissioner Sharon P. Clark

Department of Insurance

215 W. Main

Frankfort, KY 40601

Attorney General Jack Conway
Office of the Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue Ste. 118
Frankfort KY 40601



       _________________________________
      
       David Adams