K.S.A. » Chapter 65
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 65-442 (2026)

Limited liability for medical care facilities and certain duly appointed officials thereof; good faith requirement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

65-442. Limited liability for medical care facilities and certain duly appointed officials thereof; good faith requirement. (a) There shall be no liability on the part of, and no action for damages shall arise against, any duly appointed member of the governing board or the duly appointed member of a committee of the medical staff of a licensed medical care facility for any act, statement or proceeding undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions and within the course of the performance of the duties of such committee of the medical staff if such member acted in good faith and without malice, and the medical staff operates pursuant to written bylaws that have been approved by the governing board of the medical care facility.

(b) There shall be no liability on the part of and no action for damages shall arise against any licensed medical care facility because of the rendering of or failure to render professional services within such medical care facility by a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery if such person is not an employee or agent of such medical care facility.

History: L. 1967, ch. 344, § 1; L. 1971, ch. 205, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 248, § 12; L. 1976, ch. 267, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Lemuz Ex Rel. Lemuz v. Fieser, 933 P.2d 134 (Kan. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lemuz Ex Rel. Lemuz v. Fieser, 933 P.2d 134 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 30× “Theis certified to this court the following question: “Does K.S.A. 65-442(b) or K.S.A. 40-3403(h), as interpreted in the case of McVay v.”
Cady v. Schroll, 317 P.3d 90 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 10× “She notes that those decisions involved claims where a plaintiff sued a hospital rather than a physician’s group; involved independent contractors as opposed to employees; arose on claims based on the corporate negligence theory rather than on a failure to supervise theory; and…”
McVay v. Rich, 874 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 15× “Court of Appeals’ Decision The Court of Appeals identified the issue in the following manner: “The sole issue in the case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Memorial was immune from liability as a matter of law based on K.S.A 65-442(b).” 18 Kan. App. 2d 746 . The…”
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shah, 906 P.2d 642 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 8× “This court held that the claim was barred by K.S.A. 65-442 and K.S.A. 40-3403. 255 Kan.”
Dodd-Anderson Ex Rel. Dodd-Anderson v. Stevens, 905 F. Supp. 937 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 13× “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 65-442 states: (a) There shall be no liability on the part of, and no action for damages shall rise against, any duly appointed member of the governing board or the duly appointed member of a committee of the medical staff of a licensed medical care facility far…”
St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1997). · cites it 2× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-442 (b) (1995). The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that regardless of the reasons favoring liability under a corporate negligence theory, it simply cannot reach the question because the clear, unambiguous language of the statute bars a *509 patient's claims…”
Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 2× “Miller argues the statutory cap violates: (1) the right to jury trial under Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights; (2) the right to remedy by due course of law under Section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights; (3) the equal protection provision of Section…”
Davis v. Hildyard, 113 P.3d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “The first is whether the trial court was correct in its conclusion that the statements made by Dr.”
Smith v. Farha, 974 P.2d 563 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 11× “Farha come within the legitimate ambit of peer *993 review activities pursuant to the Kansas Peer Review Statutes and were, thus, subject to the privilege set forth in K.S.A. 65-442. The trial court further concluded that there was no actual malice based upon the information…”
Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 669 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “The allegation of Wesley that K.S.A. 65-442( b ) controls is found to be without merit under the factual allegations of this case.”
St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Weiss, 869 P.2d 606 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 65-442(b) provides: “There shall be no liability on the part of and no action for damages shall arise against any licensed medical care facility because of the rendering of or failure to render professional services within such medical care facility *740 by a person…”
Aldoroty v. HCA Health Servs. of Kansas, Inc., 962 P.2d 501 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “In contrast, a medical care facility would not be subject to liability for an independent contractor's negligent acts, and physicians customarily are independent contractors.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 65-442(a) — 3 cases
Dodd-Anderson Ex Rel. Dodd-Anderson v. Stevens, 905 F. Supp. 937 (D. Kan. 1995). “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 65-442 states: (a) There shall be no liability on the part of, and no action for damages shall rise against, any duly appointed member of the governing board or the duly appointed member of a committee of the medical staff of a licensed medical care facility far…”
Benaissa, M.D. v. Salina Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc. (D. Kan. 2020).
McVay v. Rich, 859 P.2d 399 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 65-442(b) — 13 cases
Lemuz Ex Rel. Lemuz v. Fieser, 933 P.2d 134 (Kan. 1997). “Theis certified to this court the following question: “Does K.S.A. 65-442(b) or K.S.A. 40-3403(h), as interpreted in the case of McVay v.”
Cady v. Schroll, 317 P.3d 90 (Kan. 2014). “She notes that those decisions involved claims where a plaintiff sued a hospital rather than a physician’s group; involved independent contractors as opposed to employees; arose on claims based on the corporate negligence theory rather than on a failure to supervise theory; and…”
McVay v. Rich, 874 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1994). “Court of Appeals’ Decision The Court of Appeals identified the issue in the following manner: “The sole issue in the case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Memorial was immune from liability as a matter of law based on K.S.A 65-442(b).” 18 Kan. App. 2d 746 . The…”
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shah, 906 P.2d 642 (Kan. 1995). “This court held that the claim was barred by K.S.A. 65-442 and K.S.A. 40-3403. 255 Kan.”
Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). “Miller argues the statutory cap violates: (1) the right to jury trial under Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights; (2) the right to remedy by due course of law under Section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights; (3) the equal protection provision of Section…”
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.