Bates v. KANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 88,757
Decision Date | 25 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 88,757,88,757 |
Citation | 31 Kan.App.2d 513,67 P.3d 168 |
Parties | DOYCE BATES, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Mark Beam-Ward and Lisa Maturo, of Hill, Beam-Ward & Kruse, LLC., of Overland Park, for the appellant.
Lisa Mendoza and Edward F. Britton, Jr., special assistant attorneys general, for the appellee.
Before MARQUARDT, P.J., LEWIS and PIERRON, JJ.
Doyce Bates appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State of Kansas, Department of Corrections (DOC) in his personal injury action.
On April 7, 1998, inmate Bates was operating a road grader at the Lansing Correctional Facility. While operating it, he suffered severe injuries including crush injuries to his pelvis and back as well as a severed urethra.
Bates subsequently filed suit against the State and the DOC in the district court in connection with the accident. The case was dismissed on November 1, 2001, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Bates' alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Bates then filed a claim with the legislature's joint committee on special claims against the State (joint committee). The joint committee denied the claim following a hearing on December 14, 2001. Bates refiled his claim in district court on January 16, 2002. The State moved for summary judgment, and the court sustained the motion, again for the alleged failure to show exhaustion of administrative remedies. Bates appeals. Bates argues the court's rationale for its decision, that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, is incorrect.
Regarding appellate review of summary judgments, "`where [this court] find[s] reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.'" Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 270 Kan. 56, 59, 12 P.3d 402 (2000) (quoting Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72, 974 P.2d 531 [1999]).
Here, summary judgment was awarded based on Bates' alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 622-23, 24 P.3d 128 (2001).
K.S.A. 75-52,138 provides:
The applicable regulation in the present case is K.A.R. XX-XX-XXX, which provides:
In its letter awarding summary judgment to the State, the district court held that a claimant must file his or her claim with the penal institution or, in the alternative, with the joint committee using prescribed forms. The court also simply incorporated the State's memoranda arguments by reference for its additional findings.
The additional incorporated findings were: The inmate grievance procedure (grievance procedure) applies in the present case or should generally be followed; Bates' claim to the joint committee is unrelated to administrative remedies; the statute of limitations bars Bates' claim; and Bates was required to file his claim with the institution under K.A.R. XX-XX-XXX(b).
Under K.S.A. 75-52,138, Bates was required to exhaust the remedies established in the Kansas Administrative Regulations for the Department of Corrections (Chapter 44) prior to filing a civil claim against the State. Specifically, the personal injury claim procedure is found at K.A.R. XX-XX-XXX et seq.
In interpreting administrative regulations, appellate courts are to grant considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation, which should not be disturbed unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 595, 921 P.2d 1225 (1996).
The interpretation of a regulation promulgated by statute is treated the same as the interpretation of a statute. In re McGhee, 5 Kan. App. 2d 461, 463, 618 P.2d 859 (1980). In construing statutes and regulations, provisions should be analyzed in pari materia and with the view of reconciling and bringing them into workable harmony if possible. State v. Bolin, 266 Kan. 18, 24, 968 P.2d 1104 (1998).
The State argues that the grievance procedure applies to the present case. The grievance procedure is wholly within Chapter 44, Article 15 of the K.A.R. K.A.R. XX-XX-XXXa(d)(2) expressly provides: Hence, as Bates was unmistakably making a bona fide substantial personal injury claim, Article 15 is arguably not in any way applicable to the instant case.
The dispositive regulation, then, is the aforementioned K.A.R. XX-XX-XXX. In particular, section (a) provides the extent of the required inmate administrative remedies for personal injury claims, with the exception of section (e), which mandates all claims must be under oath. Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chelf v. State
...(2000). A panel of this court was required to interpret this provision of K.A.R. 44–16–104 in Bates v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 31 Kan.App.2d 513, 514–15, 67 P.3d 168 (2003). In Bates, an inmate sued the State for more than $75,000 based on serious personal injuries (crushed pelvis, cru......
-
Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing
...of a regulation promulgated by statute is treated the same as the interpretation of a statute." Bates v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections , 31 Kan. App. 2d 513, 515, 67 P.3d 168 (2003). "The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that int......
-
Redford v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corr.
...injury claim greater than $500 to file the claim with either the prison or the joint committee. See Bates v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 31 Kan.App.2d 513, 514–17, 67 P.3d 168 (2003). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies dictates that an administrative remedy, provided by ......