40-3117.
Tort actions; conditions precedent to recovery of damages for pain and suffering.
In any action for tort brought against the owner, operator or occupant of a motor vehicle or against any person legally responsible for the acts or omissions of such owner, operator or occupant, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience and other non-pecuniary loss because of injury only in the event the injury requires medical treatment of a kind described in this act as medical benefits, having a reasonable value of $2,000 or more, or the injury consists in whole or in part of permanent disfigurement, a fracture to a weightbearing bone, a compound, comminuted, displaced or compressed fracture, loss of a body member, permanent injury within reasonable medical probability, permanent loss of a bodily function or death. Any person who is entitled to receive free medical and surgical benefits shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of this section upon a showing that the medical treatment received has an equivalent value of at least $2,000. Any person receiving ordinary and necessary services, normally performed by a nurse, from a relative or a member of such person's household shall be entitled to include the reasonable value of such services in meeting the requirements of this section. For the purpose of this section, the charges actually made for medical treatment expenses shall not be conclusive as to their reasonable value. Evidence that the reasonable value thereof was an amount different from the amount actually charged shall be admissible in all actions to which this subsection applies.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 193, § 17; L. 1987, ch. 173, § 7; January 1, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Martinez v. Milburn Enter., Inc., 233 P.3d 205 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 20× “, medical expenses, which would allow him or her to seek recovery of noneconomic damages in a motor vehicle tort action under K.S.A. 40-3117. Based upon Bates' holding on Medicaid, he ruled that the reduced amount payable under the care provider's agreement with Medicare…”
Bates v. Hogg, 921 P.2d 249 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “After trial, the court found Bates had not met the $2,000 threshold for economic damages required by K.S.A. 40-3117 and eliminated the noneconomic damages, thus leaving total damages awarded to Bates of $1,305.”
Stang v. Caragianis, 757 P.2d 279 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 17× “The district court held that plaintiff had failed to meet the threshold *250 requirements of K.S.A. 40-3117. Plaintiff appeals from this determination.”
Manzanares v. Bell, 522 P.2d 1291 (Kan. 1974).
· cites it 7× “*595 (5) Section 17 changed K.S.A. 40-3117 ( a ) by removing the tort "shield" provision and now permits recovery from the tort-feasor for all economic losses, but still required the injured person incur reasonable medical expenses in excess of $500, or suffer one of the…”
Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990).
· cites it 4× “K.S.A. 40-3117. We held, nevertheless, that the mandatory availability of no-fault insurance, even though purchased by the injured party, is a sufficient quid pro quo for the limitation on the recovery for noneconomic damages.”
Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell, 757 P.2d 251 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Under K.S.A. 40-3117, any person who was entitled to no-fault benefits and whose medical expenses were less than $500 or who suffered no permanent disfigurement, fracture, or permanent injury, could not recover in a tort action for any nonpecuniary loss such as pain and…”
Smith v. Marshall Ex Rel. Marshall, 577 P.2d 362 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 14× “One of the questions before the trial court was whether the threshold requirements for maintaining a claim for pain and suffering have been satisfied; or more precisely, whether the scar on the plaintiff's right leg is a permanent disfigurement within the meaning of K.S.A. 1975…”
State v. Russell, 610 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 4× “00 in medical services and had met the threshold requirements of the so-called "no-fault" insurance law, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3117. We turn now to the arguments of respondent.”
Smith v. Marshall, 587 P.2d 320 (Kan. 1978).
· cites it 4× “The issue before the trial court was whether or not, as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s injury was sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirements of K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 40-3117 which provides: “In any action for tort brought against the owner, operator .”
Cansler v. Harrington, 643 P.2d 110 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 5× “The first issue on appeal is whether the threshold requirement of $500 medical treatment expense provided for in K.S.A. 40-3117 must be met within the period for filing actions under the statute of limitations in order for appellee to recover non-pecuniary losses.”
Majors v. Hillebrand, 349 P.3d 1283 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “For instance, K.S.A. 40-3117 provides that in any tort action against the owner, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle, a plaintiff may recover damages for pain and suffering only in the event that the plaintiff establishes a threshold loss of $2,000 in reasonable medical…”
McCullough v. Wilson, 426 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2018).
“"(b) In the event of recovery from such tortfeasor by the injured person, such person's dependents or personal representatives by judgment, settlement or otherwise, the insurer or self-insurer shall be subrogated to the extent of duplicative personal injury protection benefits…”
— K.S.A. § 40-3117(fe) — 1 case
State v. Russell, 610 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1980).
“00 in medical services and had met the threshold requirements of the so-called "no-fault" insurance law, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3117. We turn now to the arguments of respondent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.