Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 65-4905 (2026)

Rejection by one or more parties; court action

✓ current as of May 2026

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

65-4905. Rejection by one or more parties; court action. In the event that one or more of the parties rejects the final determination of the screening panel, the plaintiff may proceed with the action in the district court.

History: L. 1976, ch. 249, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Roy v. Young, 93 P.3d 712 (Kan. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roy v. Young, 93 P.3d 712 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 5× “60-3506, which provides that “[i]f one or more of the parties rejects the final determination of the screening panel, the plaintiff may proceed with the action in the district court” is substantively identical to K.S.A. 65-4905, which provides that “[i]n the event that one or…”

Martindale v. Tenny, 829 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 65-4905 states in its entirety: “In the event that one or more of the parties rejects the final determination of the screening panel, the plaintiff may proceed with the action in the district court.”

Walker v. REGEHR, 202 P.3d 712 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “at 630-31 , which Roy upheld, the court found that K.S.A. 65-4905 stays the civil proceedings until the screening panel procedure has been exhausted.”

Cutler v. Sosinski, 122 P.3d 405 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “The court, in a letter dated January 14, 2005, stated: “There *649 is no procedure in the statutes to review or modify the report[,]” and that Cutler s remedy, given her dissatisfaction with the screening panel’s report, was to file suit pursuant to K.”

Macias v. Correct Care Solutions, Inc., 367 P.3d 311 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). “The only provision for relief from an adverse decision regarding a screening panel is found in K.S.A. 65-4905, which provides that if a party rejects the final determination by the screening panel, “the plaintiff may proceed with the action in the district court.”

Lawless v. Cedar Vale Reg'l Hosp., 850 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1993). “K.S.A. 65-4905. If the action proceeds to trial, the written report of the screening panel is admissible in the legal proceeding.”

Sperry (ID 47031) v. Corizon Health, Inc. (D. Kan. 2020). “However, this was not a holding and was based on K.S.A. 65-4905, which provides, “In the event that one or more of the parties reject the final determination of the screening panel, the plaintiff may proceed with the action in the district court.”

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.