Ace Law

Please Note: ALTHOUGH tHE FOLLOWING KANSAS SUPREME AND APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS ARE RECENT HOLDINGS, THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONTROLLING LAW. THEY ARE LISTED HERE MERELY TO GIVE THE READER AN IDEA OF HOW KANSAS COURTS HAVE RULED IN PAST DECISIONS. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT ONE NOT BASE FUTURE ACTION ON THE HOLDINGS IN THESE OPINIONS WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY DULY LICENSED IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

IRVIN v. SMITH, No. 85,063 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2001) This case considers in depth what constitutes a physician/patient relationship thereby imposing duties inherent therein upon the physician. Absent such a relationship (e.g., one physician merely consults another), a duty may be absent which could preclude holding the physician liable for injuries sustained in the patient's care and treatment. The opinion also considers when a summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate.

ENDORF v. BOHLENDER, No. 80,631 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) This case considers what constitutes an "actual clinical practice," which is important when determining the proper standard of care to which a physician must conform. The Court also held that the intent of the legislature must be observed when a statute is "plain and unambiguous."

LEMUZ v. FIESER, 261 Kan. 936 (1997) This case considers when a statutory remedy supplants remedies previously available (before legislative provision) per a common-law tort action and thereby forecloses such remedies; the Court considered when such legislative acts do not violate an individual's constitutional due process protections.

BARTAL v. BROWER, No. 81,197 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 1999) This case considers when an action for malicious prosecution against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' attorneys in a prior medical malpractice action is justified, and when such an action lacks merit.

KELLEY v. BARNETT, 23 Kan. App2d 564 (1997) This case considers when an injury is "ascertainable" and therefore when a medical malpractice action must be prosecuted pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations.

NOLD V. BINYON, No. 84,292 (Kan Sup. Ct. 2001) This case touches on to many issues to summarize it properly in one paragraph. However, two issues are worthy of mention. One, when a physician/patient relationship exists between a physician and a pregnant female, one also exists between the physician and the unborn child. Second, as stated in syllabus paragraph 5: "In order to recover damages in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff is required to prove the following elements: (1) The defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care and was required to meet or exceed a certain standard of care to protect plaintiff from injury; (2) the defendant breached this duty or deviated from the applicable standard of care; and (3) plaintiff was injured and that injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the standard of care."

THIS SITE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SOURCE OF LEGAL ADVICE AND A LAWYER/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT IMPLIED HEREIN. MOREOVER, KEVIN M. SMITH IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF KANSAS AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, IS LIMITED IN SCOPE TO KANSAS LAW.


	Home \| About Kevin \| Services \| Legal Briefs \| FAQ's \| Contact Us