Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. State
Decision Date | 13 September 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 108,391.,108,391. |
Citation | 313 P.3d 60,49 Kan.App. 449 |
Parties | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL AUTHORITY and Kansas University Physicians, Inc., Appellees, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Appellee, v. State of Kansas–Kansas Highway Patrol, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. K.S.A. 22–4612 establishes a legislative policy providing that a county, a city, a county or city law enforcement agency, a county department of corrections or the Kansas Highway Patrol shall be liable to pay a health care provider for health care services rendered to persons in the custody of such agencies.
2. The policy established by K.S.A. 22–4612 supersedes the prior policy enunciated in Wesley Med. Center v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 807, Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 703 P.2d 818 (1985), that a county would be held liable for the medical expenses of all offenders arrested for and subsequently charged with a violation of state law, regardless of which police agency made the arrest or whether such expenses were incurred before or after the offender was placed in the county jail.
3. Under K.S.A. 22–4612, the State of Kansas may be held liable to pay for health care services rendered to an arrested person in the custody of the Kansas Highway Patrol prior to delivery of such person to a county jail.Derenda J. Mitchell, assistant attorney general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellant.
E. Lou Bjorgaard Probasco and Jennifer Martin Smith, of Topeka, for appellees University of Kansas Hospital Authority and Kansas University Physicians, Inc.
Brandelyn K. Nichols, assistant counsel, Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, for appellee Board of County Commissioners of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas.
Before HILL, P.J., POWELL, J., and HEBERT, S.J.
The University of Kansas Hospital Authority and Kansas University Physicians, Inc. (KU) filed a collection action against the Board of County Commissioners of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Wyandotte) and the State of Kansas, Kansas Highway Patrol (State), seeking to recover the cost of medical treatment provided to an arrested person. The district court denied the State's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of KU and against the State. The State appeals.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
The material facts are not in dispute and were succinctly summarized by the district court in a memorandum opinion filed on March 29, 2012, and thereafter specifically enumerated in a journal entry of judgment filed on May 7, 2012:
KU moved for summary judgment “against one or both of the defendants.” The State moved for summary judgment “on each of [KU's] claims.” Wyandotte argued that the State was liable as a matter of law. Based on the uncontroverted facts, the district court found that the Kansas Highway Patrol had custody of Thomas when he received his treatment and therefore, pursuant to K.S.A. 22–4612, the State was liable for the costs incurred.
Since the parties do not contest the facts and the issue turns on statutory interpretation, this court's review is unlimited. See David v. Hett, 293 Kan. 679, 682, 270 P.3d 1102 (2011); Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1193, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009).
We are essentially called upon to determine whether the legislative policy discerned by our Supreme Court in Wesley Med. Center v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 807, 703 P.2d 818 (1985), has been superseded by the subsequent enactment of K.S.A. 22–4612.
In the Wesley case, our Supreme Court dealt with a situation in which an offender had shot and killed a highway patrol officer in Butler County and fled toward Wichita. He was stopped by officers of the Wichita Police Department and a gun battle ensued. The offender was seriously wounded, and the Wichita police officers summoned an ambulance which took him directly to Wesley Medical Center where he was admitted for treatment. Wichita police officers guarded the offender on the way to the hospital and for several days thereafter. The offender was charged with attempted murder in Sedgwick County and made a first appearance before a magistrate while in the hospital. Officers of the Sedgwick County Sherriff's Department then took over guard duty until the offender was released from the hospital and transferred to the Sedgwick County jail. The offender was transferred to Butler County, where he was convicted of murder, and then returned to Sedgwick County for disposition of the other felony charges.
Wesley Medical Center bought an action against the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County seeking to recover payment for the services rendered to the offender. The district court found that the city was liable for services rendered during the period prior to the transfer of custody to the county, and the county liable thereafter. The City appealed that decision.
The Supreme Court reversed the district court and held that the City was not liable for any portion of the offender's medical expenses. After reviewing various statutes and authorities, the Court enunciated the controlling principles. “So long as an offender is arrested for violation of state law and in due course is charged with a state crime and delivered to the county jail for confinement, the medical and other incidental expenses incurred as a consequence of and following his arrest, and until his transfer to such facility, are chargeable to the county.” Wesley, 237 Kan. 807, Syl. ¶ 2, 703 P.2d 818. The (Emphasis added.) Wesley, 237 Kan. 807, Syl. ¶ 3, 703 P.2d 818.
Here, Trooper Peters pursued the suspect, arrested him at the scene, and transported him directly to KU for treatment of injuries prior to transferring him to the Wyandotte County jail. The suspect was charged with eluding an officer, a severity level 9 felony under state law. It would appear at this point that application of the legislative policy discerned in Wesley would render Wyandotte County liable for the medical expenses incurred.
The application of Wesley is, however, complicated by K.S.A. 22–4612, which was enacted by the Kansas Legislature in 2006, and which provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a county, a city, a county or city law enforcement agency, a county department of corrections or the Kansas highway patrol shall be liable to pay a health care provider for health care services rendered to persons in the custody of such agencies....” (Emphasis added.)
K.S.A. 22–4612(b) and (c) deal with payment agreements and determination of amounts. K.S.A. 22–4612(d) provides that the law does not create a duty on the part of health care providers to render services “to a person in the custody of ... the Kansas highway patrol.”
K.S.A. 22–4613 was enacted together with K.S.A. 22–4612 and provides:
The specific inclusion of the Kansas Highway Patrol in these statutes recognizes that members of the highway patrol are law enforcement officers with the power to arrest and to take into custody persons charged with violations of the laws of the state. See K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 74–2105(a); K.S.A. 74–2108; K.S.A. 74–2109.
KU suggests that K.S.A. 22–4612 does not establish liability but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City
...court and the Court of Appeals in University 348 P.3d 604of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Unified Gov't, 49 Kan.App.2d 449, 454, 313 P.3d 60 (2013), held K.S.A. 22–4612(a) altered the Wesley holding by making KHP liable to pay a health care provider for health care services rendered......
-
Hennessey v. Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth.
......UKHA moved to dismiss the action, arguing Ms. Hennessey failed to plead facts supporting subject matter/diversity jurisdiction and that it is entitled to sovereign immunity. UKHA premised both arguments on it being an arm of the state of Kansas and therefore entitled to the same immunities as the state. But UKHA failed to support its motion with any evidence demonstrating it is an arm of the state or any analysis of the factors governing whether a state-created entity is an arm of the state. The district court, relying on the ......
-
Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. & Kan. Univ. Physicians, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 108,391
...although arrest might not always be necessary to establish custody.Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 49 Kan. App. 2d 449, 313 P.3d 60 (2013). Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DAVID W. BOAL, judge. Opinion filed May 22, 2015. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming th......
-
Hennessey v. Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth.
......UKHA moved to. dismiss the action, arguing Ms. Hennessey failed to plead. facts supporting subject matter/diversity jurisdiction and. that it is entitled to sovereign immunity. UKHA premised both. arguments on it being an arm of the state of Kansas and. therefore entitled to the same immunities as the state. But. UKHA failed to support its motion with any evidence. demonstrating it is an arm of the state or any analysis of. the factors governing whether a state-created entity is an. arm of the state. ......