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

K.S.A. § 65-4908 (2026)

Filing memorandum request for panels to toll statute of limitations, when

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

65-4908. Filing memorandum request for panels to toll statute of limitations, when. In those cases before a screening panel which have not been formalized by filing a petition in a court of law, the filing of a memorandum requesting the convening of a screening panel shall toll any applicable statute of limitations and such statute of limitations shall remain tolled until thirty (30) days after the screening panel has issued its written recommendations.

History: L. 1976, ch. 249, § 8; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1989–2009 · leading case: Smith v. Graham, 147 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Graham, 147 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 25× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether the statute of limitations for filing plaintiff s medical malpractice action was tolled by the operation of K.S.A. 65-4908. On May 11, 1999, Graham performed a pelvic laparoscopy with adhesiolysis on Smith.”
White v. Vinzant, 773 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 26× “K.S.A. 65-4908 provides: “In those cases before a screening panel which have not been formalized by filing a petition in a court of law, the filing of a memorandum requesting the convening of a screening panel shall toll any applicable statute oflimitations and such statute of…”
Martindale v. Tenny, 829 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 7× “Finally, K.S.A. 65-4908 reads: “In those cases before a screening panel which have not been formalized by filing a petition in a court of law, the filing of a memorandum requesting the convening of a screening panel shall toll any applicable statute of limitations and such…”
Roy v. Young, 93 P.3d 712 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 5× “60-3509 and K.S.A. 65-4908. In addition, K.S.A. 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.”
See v. Hartley, 896 P.2d 1049 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 8× “) Finally, K.S.A. 65-4908 provides: “In those cases before a screening panel which have not been formalized by filing a petition in a court of law, the filing of a memorandum requesting the convening of a screening panel shall toll any applicable statute of limitations and such…”
Ripley v. Tolbert, 921 P.2d 1210 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 65-4908. Also, the plaintiff filed his action within 4 years of the time of act giving rise to the cause of action.”
Lawless v. Cedar Vale Reg'l Hosp., 850 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs appealed, claiming that because their designated member of the panel did not participate, the panel’s report was void and the statute of limitations remained,tolled pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4908. On January 26, 1988, Jack Sade was a patient in the Alcoholic Treatment…”
Walker v. REGEHR, 202 P.3d 712 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Thus, the legislature has directed screening panels to issue their recommendations within the 90-day period but has not totally prohibited a panel from issuing its recommendations outside of this time period.”
Finley v. Est. of DeGrazio, 170 P.3d 407 (Kan. 2007). “The court convened a screening panel, thus tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4908. Subsequently, the court found the proper venue was Harvey County District Court and the case was transferred there.”
Dierksen Ex Rel. Dierksen v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 912 F. Supp. 480 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 2× “The court concludes that the construction of § 60-515(a) described above is the most reasonable interpretation under the circumstances and finds that the Kansas Supreme Court would adopt such a construction if the question were directly presented to it.”
Finley v. Est. of De Grazio, 148 P.3d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “She timely requested a medical malpractice screening panel on October 29, 2002, thus tolling the statute of Umitations under K.S.A. 65-4908. When a satisfactory panel could not be formed, the district court dismissed the screening panel proceeding on March 25, 2004.”
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.