65-406.
Liens upon personal injury damages recovered by patients; exception; enforcement of claimed lien in excess of $5,000.
(a) Every hospital, which furnishes emergency, medical or other service to any patient injured by reason of an accident not covered by the workers compensation act, if such injured party asserts or maintains a claim against another for damages on account of such injuries, shall have a lien upon that part going or belonging to such patient of any recovery or sum had or collected or to be collected by such patient, or by such patient's heirs, personal representatives or next of kin in the case of such patient's death, whether by judgment or by settlement or compromise.
(b) Such lien shall be to the amount of the reasonable and necessary charges of such hospital for the treatment, care and maintenance of such patient in such hospital up to the date of payment of such damages. Such lien shall not in any way prejudice or interfere with any lien or contract which may be made by such patient or such patient's heirs or personal representatives with any attorney or attorneys for handling the claim on behalf of such patient or such patient's heirs or personal representatives. Such lien shall not be applied or considered valid against anyone coming under the workers compensation act in this state.
(c) In the event the claimed lien is for the sum of $5000 or less it shall be fully enforceable as contemplated by subsection (a) of this section. In the event the claimed lien is for a sum in excess of $5,000 the first $5,000 of the claimed lien shall be fully enforceable as contemplated by subsection (a) of this section, and that part of the claimed lien in excess of $5,000 shall only be enforceable to the extent that its enforcement constitutes an equitable distribution of any settlement or judgment under the circumstances. In the event the patient or such patient's heirs or personal representatives and the hospital or hospitals cannot stipulate to an equitable distribution of a proposed or actual settlement or a judgment, the matter shall be submitted to the court in which the claim is pending, or if no action is pending then to any court having jurisdiction and venue of the injury or death claim, for determination of an equitable distribution of the proposed or actual settlement or judgment under the circumstances.
History:
L. 1939, ch. 235, § 1; L. 1951, ch. 357, § 1; L. 1957, ch. 336, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 227, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 21, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Kearny Cnty. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins., 170 P.3d 900 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 21× “Under K.S.A. 65-406, the maximum amount the appehees could recover was the amount “going [to] or belonging to” the appehees’ patients, that is, the $13,967.”
Harlow v. Lloyd, 809 P.2d 1228 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Joseph argues K.S.A. 65-406 does not allow for a hospital lien to be subject to attorney fees in favor of the patient’s attorney.”
Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reed, 247 P.3d 1064 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Based on this significant difference in the statutory basis for a hospital hen, we conclude that the provisions creating hospital hens, K.S.A. 65-406 and K.S.A. 65-407, should be liberally construed to carry out that public purpose.”
Richards v. Etzen, 647 P.2d 1331 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 5× “20), pursuant to K.S.A. 65-406. However, Providence-St. Margaret now claims only the statutory amount of $5,000 as provided in K.”
St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Weiss, 869 P.2d 606 (Kan. 1994).
· cites it 2× “For instance, VHA brings to the court’s attention Article 4 of Chapter 65 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, K.S.A. 65-406 through K.S.A. 65-474. It deals with hospitals and other facilities in the context of public health.”
HealthOne, Inc. v. Columbia Wesley Med. Ctr., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Kan. 2000).
· cites it 6× “§ 65-406 that a hospital lien may not interfere with the lien of the patient’s attorney on a third party liability claim, the court must conclude that any attempt by a hospital (or the patient) to pre-empt or avoid such a lien by prior assignment is likely contrary to the public…”
Moore v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2022).
· cites it 12× “2007) (construing K.S.A. § 65-406 as giving rise to an enforceable lien against injured party even when notice requirements not met; notice requirements only apply to enforceability against other creditors).”
Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Tahirkheli, 444 P.3d 1018 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Appropriately, the same limitation is put on the hospital when enforcing its statutory lien-something directly set out in the statute.”
Moore v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2022).
· cites it 10× “2007) (construing K.S.A. § 65-406 as giving rise to an enforceable lien against injured party even when notice requirements not met; notice requirements only apply to enforceability against other creditors).”
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Harmon, 981 F. Supp. 1391 (D. Kan. 1997).
· cites it 5× “In those claims, the Hospital alleges that it provided services to decedent and the passengers and that it “has a hospital lien pursuant to K.S.A. 65-406 for hospital services.” Plaintiff has now moved to dismiss the Hospital’s counterclaim against it.”
— K.S.A. § 65-406(a) — 6 cases
Kearny Cnty. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins., 170 P.3d 900 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“Under K.S.A. 65-406, the maximum amount the appehees could recover was the amount “going [to] or belonging to” the appehees’ patients, that is, the $13,967.”
Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reed, 247 P.3d 1064 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“Based on this significant difference in the statutory basis for a hospital hen, we conclude that the provisions creating hospital hens, K.S.A. 65-406 and K.S.A. 65-407, should be liberally construed to carry out that public purpose.”
Moore v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2022).
“2007) (construing K.S.A. § 65-406 as giving rise to an enforceable lien against injured party even when notice requirements not met; notice requirements only apply to enforceability against other creditors).”
Moore v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2022).
“2007) (construing K.S.A. § 65-406 as giving rise to an enforceable lien against injured party even when notice requirements not met; notice requirements only apply to enforceability against other creditors).”
— K.S.A. § 65-406(b) — 7 cases
Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reed, 247 P.3d 1064 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“Based on this significant difference in the statutory basis for a hospital hen, we conclude that the provisions creating hospital hens, K.S.A. 65-406 and K.S.A. 65-407, should be liberally construed to carry out that public purpose.”
HealthOne, Inc. v. Columbia Wesley Med. Ctr., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Kan. 2000).
“§ 65-406 that a hospital lien may not interfere with the lien of the patient’s attorney on a third party liability claim, the court must conclude that any attempt by a hospital (or the patient) to pre-empt or avoid such a lien by prior assignment is likely contrary to the public…”
Kearny Cnty. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins., 170 P.3d 900 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“Under K.S.A. 65-406, the maximum amount the appehees could recover was the amount “going [to] or belonging to” the appehees’ patients, that is, the $13,967.”
Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Tahirkheli, 444 P.3d 1018 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“Appropriately, the same limitation is put on the hospital when enforcing its statutory lien-something directly set out in the statute.”
— K.S.A. § 65-406(c) — 6 cases
Kearny Cnty. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins., 170 P.3d 900 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“Under K.S.A. 65-406, the maximum amount the appehees could recover was the amount “going [to] or belonging to” the appehees’ patients, that is, the $13,967.”
Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reed, 247 P.3d 1064 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“Based on this significant difference in the statutory basis for a hospital hen, we conclude that the provisions creating hospital hens, K.S.A. 65-406 and K.S.A. 65-407, should be liberally construed to carry out that public purpose.”
HealthOne, Inc. v. Columbia Wesley Med. Ctr., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Kan. 2000).
“§ 65-406 that a hospital lien may not interfere with the lien of the patient’s attorney on a third party liability claim, the court must conclude that any attempt by a hospital (or the patient) to pre-empt or avoid such a lien by prior assignment is likely contrary to the public…”
Moore v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2022).
“2007) (construing K.S.A. § 65-406 as giving rise to an enforceable lien against injured party even when notice requirements not met; notice requirements only apply to enforceability against other creditors).”
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.