65-4903.
Convening of panel; notice; findings; notice, organization and conduct of meetings; rules by supreme court; meetings held in camera.
The screening panel shall convene with notice in writing to all parties and their counsel and shall decide, after consideration of medical records and medical care facility records, contentions of the parties, examination of x-rays, test results and treatises, whether there was a departure from the standard practice of the health care provider specialty involved and whether a causal relationship existed between the damages suffered by the claimant and any such departure. The screening panel shall give notice, organize and conduct its meetings in accordance with rules of procedure adopted by the supreme court of Kansas to govern notice, organization and conduct of such meetings, except strict adherence of the rules of procedure and evidence applicable in civil cases shall not be required. All meetings of the screening panel shall be held in camera.
History:
L. 1976, ch. 249, § 3; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case:
Watkins v. McAllister, 59 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
Watkins v. McAllister, 59 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The trial court’s decision to strike depositions from the screening panel’s consideration is consistent with K.S.A. 65-4903 and Supreme Court Rule 142 (2001 Kan.”
Martindale v. Tenny, 829 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1992).
“” K.S.A. 65-4903 specifies the procedure to be followed by the screening panel while K.”
Lawless v. Cedar Vale Reg'l Hosp., 850 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 3× “K.S.A. 65-4903. On November 5, 1990, plaintiffs filed a memorandum setting out their contentions and arguments for the panel.”
State v. Naramore, 965 P.2d 211 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “60-3504; K.S.A. 65-4903. However, unlike the civil Pattern Jury Instructions provided in medical and professional malpractice cases, there are no criminal Pattern Jury Instructions relating to the medical and moral responsibilities of care givers for the critically or terminally…”
Cutler v. Sosinski, 122 P.3d 405 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
“, was enacted by the legislature to provide for the early resolution of many medical malpractice claims without the expense, and often inordinate delay, of actual litigation.”
Holt v. Harrod (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“In their summary judgment motion and supporting memorandum, the defendants asserted Holt could produce no expert opinion evidence showing they deviated from appropriate standards of medical care in treating him for a serious foot injury.”
Simmons (ID 117440) v. Cline (D. Kan. 2021).
“§ 65-4903. The panel may seek additional information or legal authority, if required, “limited to the factual issues stated in the parties’ contentions.”
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.