15 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burnette v. Eubanksgreen1 sentence2022See Burnette v. Eubanks, 308 Kan. 838 , 842, 425 P.3d 343 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Foster ex rel. Foster v. Klaumanngreen2 sentences2021See Foster v. Klaumann, 296 Kan. 295, 302 , 294 P.3d 223 (2013) (plaintiff must prove deviation from appropriate standard of medical care, injury, and injury "proximately resulted" from deviation); Sharples v. Roberts, 249 Kan. 286, ¶¶ 7-8 , 816 P.2d 390 (1991) (elements of malpractice 10 claim; expert testimony sufficient if "show[s] reasonable probabilty"). 2021See Foster v. Klaumann, 296 Kan. 295, 302 , 294 P.3d 223 (2013) (plaintiff must prove deviation from appropriate standard of medical care, injury, and injury "proximately resulted" from deviation); Sharples v. Roberts, 249 Kan. 286, ¶¶ 7-8 , 816 P.2d 390 (1991) (elements of malpractice 10 claim; expert testimony sufficient if "show[s] reasonable probabilty"). | 1 | 1 |
Kernke v. Menninger Clinic, Inc.green1 sentence2021Following Kernke v. Menninger Clinic, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1354 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2018See Miller v. Johnson , 295 Kan. 636 , 683, 289 P.3d 1098 (2012). 2018See Miller v. Johnson , 295 Kan. 636 , 683, 289 P.3d 1098 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Bonin v. Vannamangreen2 sentences2008See Bonin v. Vannaman, 261 Kan. 199, 210 , 929 P.2d 754 (1996). 2008See Bonin v. Vannaman, 261 Kan. 199, 210 , 929 P.2d 754 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Amranigreen1 sentence2008See Williamson, 283 Kan. at 241-42 . *520 Nevertheless, both the district court and Court of Appeals concluded the KCPA claims could be dismissed as a matter of law, although the two courts reached the conclusion on different grounds: The district court ruled the KCPA did not apply when a physician was providing medical care to a patient; the Court of Appeals concluded the jury’s verdict precluded the KCPA claims. | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Lawrence Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence1996See Foster v. Lawrence Memorial Hosp., 818 F. Supp. 319, 322 (D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. McAllister
green
2 sentences2006A medical malpractice claim is an action for professional negligence, requiring proof of “(1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered.” Watkins, 30 Kan. 2006Elements of Medical Malpractice “A medical malpractice claim requires the same elements of proof as any negligence action: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. [Citation omitted.]” Watkins v. McAllister, 30 Kan. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Drouhard-Nordhus v. Rosenquist
green
1 sentence2026To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must provide evidence regarding four elements, demonstrating: "(1) The health care provider owed the patient a duty of care and was required to meet or exceed a certain standard of care to protect the patient from injury; (2) the provider breached this duty or deviated from the applicable standard of care; (3) the patient was injured; and (4) the injury proximately resulted from the breach of the standard of care." 301 Kan. at 623 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ternes v. Galichia
green
1 sentence2022Given that and addressing the right to appeal from an unfavorable ruling, we noted the "'basic proposition' that 'a plaintiff who lacks standing to bring suit cannot require an appellate court to decide on the merits.'" 297 Kan. at 924 (quoting 15A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3902, p. 61 [2d ed. 1992]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Castleberry v. DeBrot
green
1 sentence2021We work together, sharing a common purpose, a common culture and common goals." And, under "Accountability," it stated, "We don't say, 'It's not my fault,' or 'It's not my job.'" So, Keeler concluded, "under Davita's [sic] policy Defendant [Peh] cannot, and should not den[y] to perform nursing duties on plaintiff Keeler." To establish a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show: "'(1) the health care provider owed the patient a duty of care, which required that the provider meet or exceed a certain standard of care to protect the patient from injury; (2) the provider breached that duty | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Biglow v. Eidenberg
green
1 sentence2021Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 , 887, 424 P.3d 515 (2018). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Noel v. Proud
green
2 sentences2021Kan. 2001), and Noel v. Proud, 189 Kan. 6, 9 , 367 P.2d 61 (1961), the district court dismissed claims I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII because they merely reclassified the medical malpractice claim in claim III. 2021Kan. 2001), and Noel v. Proud, 189 Kan. 6, 9 , 367 P.2d 61 (1961), the district court dismissed claims I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII because they merely reclassified the medical malpractice claim in claim III. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sharples v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2021See Foster v. Klaumann, 296 Kan. 295, 302 , 294 P.3d 223 (2013) (plaintiff must prove deviation from appropriate standard of medical care, injury, and injury "proximately resulted" from deviation); Sharples v. Roberts, 249 Kan. 286, ¶¶ 7-8 , 816 P.2d 390 (1991) (elements of malpractice 10 claim; expert testimony sufficient if "show[s] reasonable probabilty"). 2021See Foster v. Klaumann, 296 Kan. 295, 302 , 294 P.3d 223 (2013) (plaintiff must prove deviation from appropriate standard of medical care, injury, and injury "proximately resulted" from deviation); Sharples v. Roberts, 249 Kan. 286, ¶¶ 7-8 , 816 P.2d 390 (1991) (elements of malpractice 10 claim; expert testimony sufficient if "show[s] reasonable probabilty"). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Delaney v. Cade
green
2 sentences2018Delaney v. Cade , 255 Kan. 199 , 202, 212, 215-16, 873 P.2d 175 (1994) ; Calvert v. Pevehouse , No. 94,253, 2006 WL 3056509 , at *5 (Kan. 2018Delaney v. Cade , 255 Kan. 199 , 202, 212, 215-16, 873 P.2d 175 (1994) ; Calvert v. Pevehouse , No. 94,253, 2006 WL 3056509 , at *5 (Kan. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bergstrom v. Noah
green
2 sentences2002On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 270 Kan. 56, 59 , 12 P.3d 402 (2000) (quoting Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72 , 974 P.2d 531 [1999]). *1258 A medical malpractice claim requires the same elements of proof as any negligence action: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. 2002On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 270 Kan. 56, 59 , 12 P.3d 402 (2000) (quoting Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72 , 974 P.2d 531 [1999]). *1258 A medical malpractice claim requires the same elements of proof as any negligence action: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Schmidt v. Shearer
green
1 sentence2002Schmidt v. Shearer, 26 Kan. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mitchell v. City of Wichita
green
2 sentences2002On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 270 Kan. 56, 59 , 12 P.3d 402 (2000) (quoting Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72 , 974 P.2d 531 [1999]). *1258 A medical malpractice claim requires the same elements of proof as any negligence action: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. 2002On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.’ [Citation omitted.]” Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 270 Kan. 56, 59 , 12 P.3d 402 (2000) (quoting Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72 , 974 P.2d 531 [1999]). *1258 A medical malpractice claim requires the same elements of proof as any negligence action: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) injury; and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jones v. Neuroscience Associates, Inc., P.A.
green
2 sentences1997In Jones v. Neuroscience Assocs., Inc., 250 Kan. 477, 481 , 827 P.2d 51 (1992), the 2-year statute of limitations period for filing a medical malpractice claim was at issue. 1997In Jones v. Neuroscience Assocs., Inc., 250 Kan. 477, 481 , 827 P.2d 51 (1992), the 2-year statute of limitations period for filing a medical malpractice claim was at issue. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.