WILLIE R. MEADS v. TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: October 31, 2003; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2001-CA-002606-MR
WILLIE R. MEADS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PAUL F. ISAACS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00222
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING,
KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BAKER, COMBS, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
BAKER, JUDGE:
Willie R. Meads brings this pro se appeal from a
November 1, 2001, opinion and order of the Scott Circuit Court.
We affirm.
While employed by appellee, appellant was observed by
two team leaders to be breathing heavily and sweating profusely
while working on his line.
The team leaders decided to send
appellant to the on-site medical clinic.
While at the clinic,
appellant’s blood pressure was reported as 160/110 and as
180/110.
The clinic personnel recommended that appellant be
transported to Scott County Hospital for further evaluation.
At
the hospital, appellant’s blood pressure was reported as normal.
He was, however, instructed to take the rest of the day off and
to have his blood pressure checked at the hospital the following
day before returning to work.
After having his blood pressure
re-checked at the hospital, he returned to work.
Appellant was
charged with two absences as he refused to take vacation or
emergency vacation time.
On May 9, 2001, appellant filed a pro se complaint
against appellee in the Scott Circuit Court.
Therein, he
alleged:
a. Illegal act of forcing unneeded medicine.
b. Forcing unneeded, unwanted, rejected
medical treatment.
c. Privacy violation later changed to
embarrassment.
d. Violation of religion
e. Unprofessional medical treatment
f. Lost wages and damage to appeliant’s
[sic] career all for an illness the
appellant never had.
Brief for Appellant at 3.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ky. R.
Civ. P. (CR) 12.02 and, alternatively, filed a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to CR 56.
On November 1, 2001, the
circuit court entered an opinion and order dismissing
appellant’s action, thus precipitating this appeal.
-2-
We observe that appellant has filed a pro se brief
with this Court.
In the brief, appellant failed to make any
references to the record or to cite a single case or statute in
support of the many arguments advanced therein.
The arguments
raised are curt and confusing.
It is well-established that “in order to secure
reversal of a judgment, it is incumbent upon the appellant to
show error and to overcome the presumption that the trial
court’s decision was correct.”
Sloan v. Jewel Ridge Coal
Corporation, Ky., 342 S.W.2d 504, 506 (1961).
Here, appellant
has failed to demonstrate any error and to overcome the
presumption that the circuit court’s decision was proper.
For the foregoing reasons, the opinion and order of
the Scott Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT – pro se:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Willie R. Meads
Lexington, Kentucky
Jeffrey A. Savarise
Katherine A. Hessenbruch
Greenebaum Doll & McDonald
Louisville, Kentucky
David L. Knox
Greenebaum Doll & McDonald
Frankfort, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
