65-4904.
Recommendations on issue; concurring and dissenting opinions; notice to parties; copy of opinion to judge; admissibility of screening panel's report and subpoena of panel members in subsequent legal proceedings.
(a) Within 180 days after the screening panel is commenced, such panel shall make written recommendations on the issue of whether the health care provider departed from the standard of care in a way which caused the plaintiff or claimant damage. A concurring or dissenting member of the screening panel may file a written concurring or dissenting opinion. All written opinions shall be supported by corroborating references to published literature and other relevant documents.
(b) The screening panel shall notify all parties when its determination is to be handed down, and, within seven days of its decision, shall provide a copy of its opinion and any concurring or dissenting opinion to each party and each attorney of record and to the judge of the district court.
(c) The written report of the screening panel shall be admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding, and either party may subpoena any and all members of the panel as witnesses for examination relating to the issues at trial, provided the panel member or members otherwise meet the qualifications of K.S.A. 60-3412, and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 1976, ch. 249, § 4; L. 1986, ch. 229, § 49; L. 1999, ch. 57, § 65; L. 2001, ch. 6, § 2; L. 2008, ch. 80, § 7; L. 2012, ch. 67, § 6; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case:
White v. Vinzant, 773 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
White v. Vinzant, 773 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Reading together K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 65-4904(a) and K.S.A. 65-4908, defendants submit that screening panel proceedings can toll the applicable statute of limitations for a maximum of 120 days.”
Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990).
· cites it 2× “When its prior efforts failed to check the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums as promised, the 1986 legislature went further, taking the following actions: medical malpractice screening panel decisions were made admissible at trial (K.S.A. 1986 Supp.…”
Walker v. REGEHR, 202 P.3d 712 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 65-4904(a) contains neither negative words nor the consequences of noncompliance.”
Martindale v. Tenny, 829 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1992).
“65-4903 specifies the procedure to be followed by the screening panel while K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4904 governs the preparation of the screening panel opinion, the notice to be given after an opinion has been reached and related matters.”
Cutler v. Sosinski, 122 P.3d 405 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” See K.S.A. 65-4904(a). She requested a new panel be convened.”
Williamson v. Amrani, 152 P.3d 60 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 2× “This legislation included, among other provisions, an amendment allowing for the admissibility of screening panel review determinations at subsequent trials, K.S.A. 65-4904(c); the addition of an internal risk management program requirement for medical care facilities, K.”
Lawless v. Cedar Vale Reg'l Hosp., 850 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1993).
“K.S.A. 65-4904. On September 5, 1991, approximately 20 months after the panel had been requested and 15 months after the third medical member of the panel had been selected, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote the panel chairman to inquire when a decision would be issued by the panel.”
Shirley v. Smith, 916 P.2d 730 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
“K.S.A. 65-4904(c) provides that the decision of a medical malpractice screening panel is admissible in a subsequent civil suit.”
Holt v. Harrod, 481 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Conversely, an unfavorable report presumably would have doomed this case, since Holt appears to lack the financial resources and legal wherewithal to independently secure a medical expert.”
K.S.A. § 65-4904(a): 3 cases
White v. Vinzant, 773 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
“Reading together K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 65-4904(a) and K.S.A. 65-4908, defendants submit that screening panel proceedings can toll the applicable statute of limitations for a maximum of 120 days.”
Walker v. REGEHR, 202 P.3d 712 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 65-4904(a) contains neither negative words nor the consequences of noncompliance.”
Cutler v. Sosinski, 122 P.3d 405 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
“” See K.S.A. 65-4904(a). She requested a new panel be convened.”
K.S.A. § 65-4904(c): 3 cases
Williamson v. Amrani, 152 P.3d 60 (Kan. 2007).
“This legislation included, among other provisions, an amendment allowing for the admissibility of screening panel review determinations at subsequent trials, K.S.A. 65-4904(c); the addition of an internal risk management program requirement for medical care facilities, K.”
Shirley v. Smith, 916 P.2d 730 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
“K.S.A. 65-4904(c) provides that the decision of a medical malpractice screening panel is admissible in a subsequent civil suit.”
Holt v. Harrod, 481 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Conversely, an unfavorable report presumably would have doomed this case, since Holt appears to lack the financial resources and legal wherewithal to independently secure a medical expert.”
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.