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
