The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision in an unpublished memorandum opinion issued December 18, 2025, resolving a dispute between the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas D. Wingate. The case, designated *Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure v. Hon. Thomas D. Wingate* (Ky. 2025), represents a rare instance where medical licensing officials challenged a trial judge's authority through the state's highest court.
The appellants included the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure along with three key officials acting in their official capacities: Dr. Dale E. Toney, chair of Inquiry Panel B and board member; Michael S. Rodman, executive director; and Dr. William C. Thornberry, board president and member. The real party in interest was Dr. Pragya B. Gupta, whose medical licensing matter appears to have triggered the underlying dispute.
According to court records, the medical board petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition against Judge Wingate, seeking to prevent the Franklin Circuit Court from taking certain actions in the case. The Court of Appeals apparently denied this request, prompting the board to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The high court's one-word disposition - "AFFIRMING" - indicates the justices agreed with the appeals court's decision to deny the writ.
The case originated in Franklin Circuit Court under case number 24-CI-01033, suggesting the underlying litigation began in 2024. The matter then proceeded to the Court of Appeals as case number 2025-CA-0277 before reaching the Kentucky Supreme Court as case 2025-SC-0246-MR.
Writs of prohibition are extraordinary remedies typically sought when a party believes a lower court is exceeding its jurisdiction or authority. Medical licensing boards rarely resort to such measures against circuit court judges, making this case notable within Kentucky's legal landscape. The fact that the medical board assembled its top leadership as appellants - including the board president, executive director, and inquiry panel chair - suggests the dispute involved significant regulatory concerns.
The involvement of Dr. Gupta as the real party in interest indicates the case likely stemmed from a medical licensing proceeding or disciplinary action. Medical boards routinely investigate complaints against physicians and can impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to license revocation. When physicians challenge board actions, the cases often end up in circuit court for judicial review.
Kentucky's medical licensing system operates under state statutes that grant the board authority to regulate physician conduct and ensure public safety. The board's inquiry panels investigate allegations of professional misconduct, substandard care, or violations of medical practice standards. These proceedings can result in formal charges and disciplinary hearings.
The Supreme Court's decision to issue an unpublished opinion is significant. Under Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(D), unpublished opinions cannot be cited as binding precedent in other cases. However, such decisions rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration when no published opinion adequately addresses the legal issue presented.
The timing of the decision, issued just days before the end of 2025, suggests the court prioritized resolving this dispute involving judicial authority and medical regulation. The brief memorandum format indicates the justices found the legal issues sufficiently clear to warrant summary disposition rather than extended analysis.
Franklin Circuit Court, located in Frankfort, frequently handles cases involving state agencies and regulatory matters due to the county's status as Kentucky's capital. Judge Wingate's involvement in the medical licensing dispute placed him at the center of a conflict between judicial and administrative authority.
The affirmance means Judge Wingate retains whatever authority the Court of Appeals determined he possessed in the underlying case. This outcome suggests the medical board's concerns about judicial overreach were not persuasive to either the Court of Appeals or the Kentucky Supreme Court.
For the medical licensing community, this decision reinforces that circuit courts maintain significant authority to review board actions, even when those boards believe judicial intervention exceeds proper boundaries. The case demonstrates the ongoing tension between administrative expertise in professional regulation and judicial oversight of agency decisions.
The resolution also impacts Dr. Gupta, whose licensing matter can now proceed in Franklin Circuit Court without the procedural complications that would have resulted from a successful writ of prohibition. The specific nature of her dispute with the medical board remains unclear from the available court records.
This case joins a growing body of Kentucky law addressing the intersection of professional licensing, administrative authority, and judicial review, though its unpublished status limits its precedential value for future disputes involving medical board actions and circuit court jurisdiction.