# Blankenship v. Collier

> Kentucky Supreme Court · January 21, 2010 · 302 S.W.3d 665

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5108789

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert M. BLANKENSHIP, M.D., and Caritas Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Caritas Medical Center v. Horace COLLIER
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 21, 2010
- **Citations:** 302 S.W.3d 665; 2010 Ky. LEXIS 4; 2010 WL 246066
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Minton
- **Judges:** Abramson, Cunningham, Minton, Noble, Schroder, Scott, Venters
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5108789

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a motion for summary judgment was properly before the Trial Court when the plaintiff had failed to identify an expert witness in 17 months since filing a malpractice suit, despite conceding that an expert would be necessary to prove his claim
- affirming the grant of summary judgment when the plaintiff “never suggested to the trial court that he could prove medical negligence without expert witnesses until he responded to the defendant’s motions for summary judgment”
- noting that summary judgment is proper “only after the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to complete discovery.”

## Opinion text

MINTON, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I believe the majority’s approach to this recurring issue in medical malpractice cases is sound. However, under the specific facts of this case, I agree with Justice Venters that the trial court (and, by extension, this Court) impermissibly shifted the burden on summary judgment from the movants, Caritas and Blankenship, to the respondent, Collier. Had the movants presented an adequately particularized and supported motion for summary judgment, I would join the majority opinion. Because they did not do so, however, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5108789. Public record. Not legal advice.