CHELF v. State, 263 P.3d 852

Chelf, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, was severely injured when a forklift-tinged machine slipped and fell on him on June 18, 2007, causing extensive injuries and claimed damages around $2 million.
He filed a property/inmate personal injury claim with the Kansas Department of Corrections on February 14, 2008; DOC employee Jones advised filing the claim with the Joint Committee on Special Claims for amounts over $500.
Chelf submitted his claim to the Joint Committee on February 26, 2008; the committee denied the claim without prejudice on August 27, 2008.
Chelf then filed a tort petition against the State in Shawnee County District Court in October 2008; the case was transferred to Leavenworth County in November 2008.
The State moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the district court denied the motion but later granted it on reconsideration, determining Chelf filed the claim out of time.
The district court dismissed the KTCA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prompting Chelf to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion is jurisdictional under KTCA	Chelf argues exhaustion is jurisdictional and strict compliance required.	State contends exhaustion is a prerequisite but not jurisdictional.	Exhaustion is mandatory but nonjurisdictional.
Whether Chelf timely exhausted under K.A.R. XX-XX-XXXa	Chelf contends past administrative handling may render timing moot for equity.	State maintains failure to file within 10 days defeats exhaustion.	Chelf failed to timely exhaust under the regulation, but exhaustion is nonjurisdictional and may be subject to equitable defenses.
Whether equitable defenses (waiver, estoppel, futility) bar the action	Chelf relies on waiver, estoppel, or futility to excuse exhaustion.	State argues no qualifying equitable defenses are shown.	Equitable defenses have no merit here; lack of timely exhaustion precludes relief.
Whether procedural due process rights were violated by the deadline	Chelf argues insufficient notice of the new 10-day deadline violated due process.	State asserts no due process violation given the deadline and notice requirements.	No procedural due process violation; deadline applied did not deprive due process.

Bates v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 31 Kan. App. 2d 513, 67 P.3d 168 (2003) (two exhaustion alternatives previously recognized for inmate claims)
Corter v. Cline, 42 Kan. App. 2d 721, 217 P.3d 991 (2009) (jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional exhaustion; multiple precedents)
Boyd v. Werholtz, 41 Kan. App. 2d 15, 203 P.3d 1 (2008) (exhaustion prerequisites and jurisdictional concerns)
Litzinger v. Bruce, 41 Kan. App. 2d 9, 201 P.3d 707 (2008) (exhaustion doctrine and related limitations)
Laubach v. Roberts, 32 Kan. App. 2d 863, 90 P.3d 961 (2004) (jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional thresholds in claims)
In re Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 24 P.3d 128 (2000) (equitable exception to exhaustion when remedies are inadequate)
McMillan v. McKune, 35 Kan. App. 2d 654, 135 P.3d 1258 (2006) (equitable considerations in exhaustion)
McComb v. State, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1037, 94 P.3d 715 (2004) (exhaustion prerequisites and related doctrines)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional analysis framework)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion as affirmative defense vs. element)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (statutory preconditions and exhaustion framework)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. _ (2010) (distinction between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional threshold requirements)