Printable Format65-4908. 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, ยง 8; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Civil Procedure: The Kansas Savings Statute Revives a Timely Filed Cause of Action, Despite the Passing of the Statute of Limitations [See v. Hartley, 896 P.2d 1049 (Kan. 1995)]," Michelle M. Sehee, 35 W.L.J. 346 (1996).
"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part I," William E. Westerbeke and Stephen R. McAllister, 49 K.L.R. 1037 (2001).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Tolling period for statutes of limitation applicable to cases not formalized by filing petition in court. White v. VinZant, 13 Kan App. 2d 467, 472, 773 P.2d 1169 (1989).
2. Action barred by statute of limitations; challenge to screening panel must be made within 30-day period. Lawless v. Cedar Vale Regional Hosp., 252 Kan. 1064, 1065, 1069, 850 P.2d 795 (1993).
3. Section's tolling provision is applicable to medical malpractice action otherwise barred by K.S.A. 60-513(c). See v. Hartley, 257 Kan. 813, 815, 822, 896 P.2d 1049 (1995).
4. Noted in discussion that claims barred by K.S.A. 60-515(a) statute of repose may not be revived by later enacted limitations statute. Ripley v. Tolbert, 260 Kan. 491, 508, 921 P.2d 1210 (1996).
5. Filing request for screening panel sufficient to toll statute of limitations; actual convening of panel not necessary. Smith v. Graham, 282 Kan. 651, 659, 147 P.3d 859 (2006).
6. Court convened medical malpractice screening panel; tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4908. Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, 285 Kan. 202, 170 P.3d 407 (2007).