Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-427 (2026)

Physician-patient privilege

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-427. Physician-patient privilege. (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Patient" means a person who, for the sole purpose of securing preventive, palliative, or curative treatment, or a diagnosis preliminary to such treatment, of such person's physical or mental condition, consults a physician, or submits to an examination by a physician.

(2) "Physician" means a person licensed or reasonably believed by the patient to be licensed to practice medicine or one of the healing arts as defined in K.S.A. 65-2802, and amendments thereto, in the state or jurisdiction in which the consultation or examination takes place.

(3) "Holder of the privilege" means the patient while alive and not under guardianship or conservatorship or the guardian or conservator of the patient, or the personal representative of a deceased patient.

(4) "Confidential communication between physician and patient" means such information transmitted between physician and patient, including information obtained by an examination of the patient, as is transmitted in confidence and by a means which, so far as the patient is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it is transmitted.

(b) Except as provided by subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f), a person, whether or not a party, has a privilege in a civil action or in a prosecution for a misdemeanor, other than a prosecution for a violation of K.S.A. 8-2,144 or 8-1567, and amendments thereto, or a city ordinance or county resolution which prohibits the acts prohibited by those statutes, to refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from disclosing, a communication, if the person claims the privilege and the judge finds that: (1) The communication was a confidential communication between patient and physician; (2) the patient or the physician reasonably believed the communication necessary or helpful to enable the physician to make a diagnosis of the condition of the patient or to prescribe or render treatment therefor; (3) the witness (i) is the holder of the privilege, (ii) at the time of the communication was the physician or a person to whom disclosure was made because reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication or for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was transmitted or (iii) is any other person who obtained knowledge or possession of the communication as the result of an intentional breach of the physician's duty of nondisclosure by the physician or the physician's agent or servant; and (4) the claimant is the holder of the privilege or a person authorized to claim the privilege for the holder of the privilege.

(c) There is no privilege under this section as to any relevant communication between the patient and the patient's physician: (1) Upon an issue of the patient's condition in an action to commit the patient or otherwise place the patient under the control of another or others because of alleged incapacity or mental illness, in an action in which the patient seeks to establish the patient's competence or in an action to recover damages on account of conduct of the patient which constitutes a criminal offense other than a misdemeanor; (2) upon an issue as to the validity of a document as a will of the patient; or (3) upon an issue between parties claiming by testate or intestate succession from a deceased patient.

(d) There is no privilege under this section in an action in which the condition of the patient is an element or factor of the claim or defense of the patient or of any party claiming through or under the patient or claiming as a beneficiary of the patient through a contract to which the patient is or was a party.

(e) There is no privilege under this section: (1) As to blood drawn at the request of a law enforcement officer pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto, or K.S.A. 3-1007, and amendments thereto; and (2) as to information which the physician or the patient is required to report to a public official or as to information required to be recorded in a public office, unless the statute requiring the report or record specifically provides that the information shall not be disclosed.

(f) No person has a privilege under this section if the judge finds that sufficient evidence, aside from the communication has been introduced to warrant a finding that the services of the physician were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or to plan to commit a crime or a tort, or to escape detection or apprehension after the commission of a crime or a tort.

(g) A privilege under this section as to a communication is terminated if the judge finds that any person while a holder of the privilege has caused the physician or any agent or servant of the physician to testify in any action to any matter of which the physician or the physician's agent or servant gained knowledge through the communication.

(h) Providing false information to a physician for the purpose of obtaining a prescription-only drug shall not be a confidential communication between physician and patient and no person shall have a privilege in any prosecution for unlawfully obtaining or distributing a prescription-only drug under K.S.A. 21-5708, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-427; L. 1965, ch. 354, § 8; L. 1988, ch. 210, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 99, § 2; L. 2009, ch. 32, § 52; L. 2011, ch. 105, § 30; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 36; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 33; L. 2022, ch. 80, § 21; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 669 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 669 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 10× “Wesley next asserts that portions of the information sought in the malpractice case relate to medical records of persons other than plaintiffs' decedent and that such information and documents are subject to the physician-patient privilege under K.”

State v. George, 575 P.2d 511 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 10× “He raises but one point: that it was a violation of the physician-patient privilege, as set out in K.S.A. 60-427, to allow into evidence the testimony of Dr.”

Bryant v. Hilst, 136 F.R.D. 487 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 10× “The current Kansas statute governing the physician-patient privilege is K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-427 which states in relevant part: (b) Except as provided by subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f), a person, whether or not a party, has a privilege in a civil action.”

Kansas Med. Mut. Ins. v. Svaty, 244 P.3d 642 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “60-426 (attorney-clientprivilege), K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 60-427 (physician-patient privilege), K.”

Werner v. Kliewer, 710 P.2d 1250 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-427. The statute precludes physicians from disclosing confidential communications between them and their patients.”

Walters v. Hitchcock, 697 P.2d 847 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 4× “The trial court also stated it believed such testimony would violate the physician-patient privilege (K.S.A. 60-427). The trial court's reliance on the physician-patient privilege is misplaced.”

In Re the Est. of Broderick, 125 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 60-427. The holder of the privilege includes “the personal representative of a deceased patient.”

State v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “: This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the State from the district court’s order suppressing the results of the defendant’s blood test on the basis of the physician-patient privilege under K.S.A. 60-427. On May 26, 1984, Butler County Sheriff s officers, responding to a…”

Foster Ex Rel. Foster v. Klaumann, 216 P.3d 671 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “Mackinnon should not have been allowed to express opinions not properly disclosed during discovery.”

State v. Weilert, 225 P.3d 767 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “The Kansas physician-patient privilege doesn’t apply in felony and DUI cases, K.S.A. 60-427, so there’s no statutoiy basis to exclude this evidence.”

State v. Shoptaw, 56 P.3d 303 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The Kansas Supreme Court held that the trial court had improperly quashed the subpoena duces tecum because the holder of the privilege (Eckhart) had not exercised it and the physician-patient privilege of K.S.A. 60-427 only applied to civil actions and misdemeanors.”

Wipf v. Altstiel, 2016 SD 97 (S.D. 2016). · cites it 2× “1994) (interpreting Kansas’s privilege rule, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-427 (West 2012), which protected “confidential communication[s] between patient and physician”); Osterman v.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-427(a)(1) — 1 case

State v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “: This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the State from the district court’s order suppressing the results of the defendant’s blood test on the basis of the physician-patient privilege under K.S.A. 60-427. On May 26, 1984, Butler County Sheriff s officers, responding to a…”

— K.S.A. § 60-427(a)(2) — 1 case

State v. Berberich, 978 P.2d 902 (Kan. 1999).

— K.S.A. § 60-427(a)(3) — 3 cases

In Re the Est. of Broderick, 125 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “See K.S.A. 60-427. The holder of the privilege includes “the personal representative of a deceased patient.”

Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 669 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1983). “Wesley next asserts that portions of the information sought in the malpractice case relate to medical records of persons other than plaintiffs' decedent and that such information and documents are subject to the physician-patient privilege under K.”

Burroughs v. Thomas, 937 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

— K.S.A. § 60-427(a)(4) — 3 cases

State v. Newman, 680 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1984).

Burroughs v. Thomas, 937 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

— K.S.A. § 60-427(b) — 10 cases

State v. Weilert, 225 P.3d 767 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “The Kansas physician-patient privilege doesn’t apply in felony and DUI cases, K.S.A. 60-427, so there’s no statutoiy basis to exclude this evidence.”

State v. Parson, 601 P.2d 680 (Kan. 1979).

Bryant v. Hilst, 136 F.R.D. 487 (D. Kan. 1991). “The current Kansas statute governing the physician-patient privilege is K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-427 which states in relevant part: (b) Except as provided by subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f), a person, whether or not a party, has a privilege in a civil action.”

State v. Berberich, 978 P.2d 902 (Kan. 1999).

— K.S.A. § 60-427(c)(2) — 1 case

In Re the Est. of Broderick, 125 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “See K.S.A. 60-427. The holder of the privilege includes “the personal representative of a deceased patient.”

— K.S.A. § 60-427(d) — 7 cases

Walters v. Hitchcock, 697 P.2d 847 (Kan. 1985). “The trial court also stated it believed such testimony would violate the physician-patient privilege (K.S.A. 60-427). The trial court's reliance on the physician-patient privilege is misplaced.”

Werner v. Kliewer, 710 P.2d 1250 (Kan. 1985). “K.S.A. 60-427. The statute precludes physicians from disclosing confidential communications between them and their patients.”

Lake v. Steeves, 161 F.R.D. 441 (D. Kan. 1994).

Clark v. Homrighous, 136 F.R.D. 186 (D. Kan. 1991).

— K.S.A. § 60-427(fe) — 1 case

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.