St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale

9 Citing cases

  1. Dozier v. Dozier

    252 Kan. 1035 (Kan. 1993)   Cited 14 times

    The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof." St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, Syl. ¶ 1, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). The trial court found Carl's claim of false arrest and imprisonment failed, as a matter of law, because the restraint was legal.

  2. Illig v. BeLieu

    124,347 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2022)

    Contrary to Illig's assertions, this court has required expert testimony on causation even when there was a clear medical error-which this court does not presume here. See, e.g., St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). In Hale, a panel of this court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim where medical providers left a clip in the patient's leg after surgery and the patient developed a staph infection in that same leg.

  3. Cunningham v. Riverside Health System, Inc.

    33 Kan. App. 2d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Finding exception did not apply where a nursing facility assistant negligently fractured the leg of a patient suffering from osteoporosis

    The extent and character of the care that a hospital owes its patients depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and the measure of duty of a hospital is to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence used by hospitals generally in the community. St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 619, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). " 'The standard of medical and hospital care which is to be applied in each case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts.' [Citation omitted.]"

  4. Richards v. Bryan

    19 Kan. App. 2d 950 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 49 times
    Concluding that "if a corporation is closely held, a court, in its discretion, may treat an action raising derivative claims as a direct action" by applying a factor test

    " 'The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof.' " 252 Kan. at 1041, 850 P.2d 789 (quoting St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, Syl. p 1, 752 P.2d 129 [1988].        CONTRACT CLAIM

  5. Tarantola v. Cushing Mem'l Hosp.

    525 F. App'x 836 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    See id. (expert testimony required); Perkins v. Susan B. Allen Mem'l Hosp., 146 P.3d 1102, 1107 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (same); St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 752 P.2d 129, 134 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988) (affirming summary judgment). The district court rejected Mr. Tarantola's claim that the Kansas common knowledge exception obviated the need for expert testimony in his case.

  6. Sylvia v. Wisler

    Case No. 13-2534-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The elements of breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract between the parties; (2) consideration; (3) Plaintiff's performance or willingness to perform in compliance with the contract; (4) Defendants' breach of the contract; and (5) damages as a result of the breach.St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 617, 752 P.2d 129, 132 (1988). See, e.g., Britvic Soft Drinks, Ltd. V. ACSIS Techs., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1187 (D. Kan. 2003).

  7. Schara v. Pleasant Valley Nursing, LLC

    Case No. 07-1165-EFM (D. Kan. Jul. 22, 2009)

    Cunningham v. Riverside Health Sys., Inc., 33 Kan. App. 2d 1, 99 P.3d 133 (2004).St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988) (noting that such facts might qualify for the common knowledge exception in a suit against the doctor, but this claim was against the hospital).Webb v. Lungstrum, 223 Kan. 487, 575 P.2d 22 (1978).

  8. Hare v. Wendler

    263 Kan. 434 (Kan. 1997)   Cited 52 times
    In Hare v. Wendler, 263 Kan. 434, 440, 949 P.2d 1141 (1997), this court held that expert testimony is generally required in medical malpractice cases to establish the applicable standard of care and to prove causation, except where lack of reasonable care or existence of proximate cause is apparent to an average layperson from common knowledge or experience.

    223 Kan. at 491. The common knowledge exception was found not applicable and expert medical evidence was required in the following cases: Bacon, 243 Kan. 303; Webb, 223 Kan. 487; Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390, 424 P.2d 488 (1967); Heany, 23 Kan. App. 2d 583; St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988); Crooks v. Greene, 12 Kan. App. 2d 62, 736 P.2d 78 (1987); and Crowley v. O'Neil, 4 Kan. App. 2d 491, 609 P.2d 198, rev. denied 228 Kan. 806 (1980). The exception was applied in McKnight v. St. Francis Hosp. School of Nursing, 224 Kan. 632, 585 P.2d 984 (1978); Hiatt v. Groce, 215 Kan. 14, 523 P.2d 320 (1974); Karrigan v. Nazareth Convent Academy, Inc., 212 Kan. 44, 510 P.2d 190 (1973); Rule v. Cheeseman, Executrix, 181 Kan. 957, 317 P.2d 472 (1957); and Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 255 P.2d 1033 (1953).

  9. Smith v. Milfeld

    19 Kan. App. 2d 252 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing principle in context of summary judgment ruling

    Expert testimony is often "required in medical malpractice cases to establish the accepted standard of care and to prove causation." 243 Kan. at 307, 756 P.2d 416. Accord St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 618, 752 P.2d 129 (1988).        Drs.