60-2801.
Settlement or release of liability; limitations; disavowal of agreement.
(a) Within 14 days of the date of the occurrence causing injury to any person, who either is under the care of a person licensed to practice the healing arts, or is confined to a hospital or sanitarium as a patient, no person whose interest is or may become adverse to the injured person shall:
(1) Negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement with the injured patient; or
(2) obtain or attempt to obtain a general release of liability from the injured patient.
(b) Any settlement agreement entered into, any general release of liability or any written statement made by any person who is under the care of a person licensed to practice the healing arts or is confined in a hospital or sanitarium after he or she incurs a personal injury, which is not obtained in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 60-2802, and amendments thereto, may be disavowed by the injured person within 14 days after discharge from the care of any person licensed to practice the healing arts or after release from the hospital or sanitarium, whichever occurs first, and such statement, release or settlement shall not be received in evidence in any court action relating to the injury.
History:
L. 1972, ch. 236, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 185; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Settlement or release obtained in contravention of subsection (a) is void. Traylor v. Wachter, 3 Kan. App. 2d 536, 543, 544, 545, 546, 548, 549, 550, 598 P.2d 1061.
2. Cited; obtaining an oral release does not give rise to a separate cause of action. Traylor v. Wachter, 227 Kan. 221, 229, 230, 607 P.2d 1094.
3. Dismissal of action under K.S.A. 60-237(d) not proper sanction for mere inability to permit discovery. Locke v. Kansas Fire & Cas. Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 678, 679, 665 P.2d 776 (1983).
4. Cited; validity of release where employee receiving alcoholism treatment unrelated to employment upheld. Rickman v. Cone Mills Corp., 659 F. Supp. 412, 416 (1987); reversed, 893 F.2d 1340 (1989).
Traylor v. Wachter, 598 P.2d 1061 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 18דWe will endeavor to address the remaining questions as we understand them after first speaking to questions of agency and interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2801 et seq. Substantial argument is made concerning whether the actions of Stark and other employees of Scholfield are imputable…”
Traylor v. Wachter, 607 P.2d 1094 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 4דThis brings us to the claims arising from the earlier oral release in contravention of K.S.A. 60-2801. The statute reads: "( a ) Within fifteen (15) days of the date of the occurrence causing injury to any person, who either is under the care of a person licensed to practice the…”
Rickman v. Cone Mills Corp., 659 F. Supp. 412 (D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 5דFirst, plaintiff argues that, regardless of whether plaintiff continued to accept the benefits of the agreement, the release and covenant not to sue are void under K.S.A. 60-2801 and 60-2802. Alternatively, plaintiff contends that, under Kansas common law, an individual may…”
In re Adoption of J.H.G., 869 P.2d 640 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 60-2801. Surely an 18-year-old unmarried mother’s decision to give up a child for adoption deserves as much consideration.”
In Re Snook, 134 B.R. 424 (D. Kan. 1991). “They assert that the evidence establishes, at best, a future intent by the debtor to establish a residence on the 160 acres.”
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl H., 739 P.2d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 60-2801. Surely an 18-year-old unmarried mother's decision to give up a child for adoption deserves as much consideration.”
Locke v. Kansas Fire & Cas. Co., 665 P.2d 776 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “Plaintiff filed this action December 16,1981, alleging a release from liability for personal injuries had been obtained through *679 fraud, overreaching, coercion and duress, and contrary to K.S.A. 60-2801. Abilene Inn, Inc., filed its answer January 5, 1982, and on that same…”
Crockett v. Waller-Smith, 63 Va. Cir. 562 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2004). “This question is one of first impression within Virginia and, while other states have similar statutes, none requires a rescission clause and, thus, are not helpful in answering this question.”
State v. Homolka, 145 P.2d 156 (Kan. 1944). · cites it 2דIt is true that section 60-2801, G. S. 1935, provides that conviction of a crime may be shown for the purposé of affecting the credibility of a witness and it may be argued that by inference the statute makes inadmissible a showing of juvenile delinquency, since such finding…”
— K.S.A. § 60-2801(6) — 1 case
Traylor v. Wachter, 598 P.2d 1061 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “We will endeavor to address the remaining questions as we understand them after first speaking to questions of agency and interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2801 et seq. Substantial argument is made concerning whether the actions of Stark and other employees of Scholfield are imputable…”
— K.S.A. § 60-2801(a) — 2 cases
Traylor v. Wachter, 598 P.2d 1061 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “We will endeavor to address the remaining questions as we understand them after first speaking to questions of agency and interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2801 et seq. Substantial argument is made concerning whether the actions of Stark and other employees of Scholfield are imputable…”
Rickman v. Cone Mills Corp., 659 F. Supp. 412 (D. Kan. 1987). “First, plaintiff argues that, regardless of whether plaintiff continued to accept the benefits of the agreement, the release and covenant not to sue are void under K.S.A. 60-2801 and 60-2802. Alternatively, plaintiff contends that, under Kansas common law, an individual may…”
— K.S.A. § 60-2801(b) — 1 case
Traylor v. Wachter, 598 P.2d 1061 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “We will endeavor to address the remaining questions as we understand them after first speaking to questions of agency and interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2801 et seq. Substantial argument is made concerning whether the actions of Stark and other employees of Scholfield are imputable…”
— K.S.A. § 60-2801(o) — 1 case
Traylor v. Wachter, 598 P.2d 1061 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “We will endeavor to address the remaining questions as we understand them after first speaking to questions of agency and interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2801 et seq. Substantial argument is made concerning whether the actions of Stark and other employees of Scholfield are imputable…”
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.