Ryser v. State
284 P.3d 337
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Ryser is a Kansas and Missouri licensee practicing medicine; the Kansas Board of Healing Arts opened a disciplinary investigation in August 2009 after a Missouri patient sued Ryser for negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation and the Board issued a subpoena for medical records.
- Ryser petitioned the district court in October 2009 under K.S.A. 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) to revoke the subpoena, arguing the Board lacked authority to investigate Missouri practice.
- The Board contended exhaustion under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA) and that the subpoena was a nonfinal agency action; the district court ruled Ryser was not required to exhaust and that the Board could investigate because Ryser was a Kansas licensee practicing under the Act.
- On appeal, the Board argued lack of appellate jurisdiction due to exhaustion; Ryser maintained KJRA does not apply to this subpoena review.
- The court affirmed the district court, holding the Board had jurisdiction to investigate Ryser’s Missouri practice as a licensee under the Act and that K.S.A. 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) provides a limited nonfinal-review procedure distinct from the KJRA, and that exhaustion is not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies required? | Ryser (plaintiff) argues exhaustion under KJRA is not required for 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) review | Board (defendant) argues exhaustion applies under KJRA and agency procedures | No; exhaustion not required under 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) |
| KJRA applicability to Board subpoena review | KJRA does not apply to Board subpoena review under 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) | KJRA governs judicial review of agency actions and applies, surrendering review mechanics | KJRA does not apply to the limited subpoena-review procedure in 65-2839a(b)(3)(B) |
| Authority to investigate Missouri practice by a Kansas licensee | Missouri practice cannot ground disciplinary action against a Kansas licensee | Board may discipline a Kansas-licensed physician for acts in another state if within scope of Act | Board has jurisdiction to investigate Ryser’s Missouri practice under the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 287 Kan. 749 (2009) (discusses exhaustion and jurisdictional concerns under KJRA)
- State v. Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, 291 Kan. 322 (2010) (addresses subject-matter jurisdiction and exhaustion rules)
- Chelf v. State, 46 Kan. App. 2d 522 (2011) (discusses exhaustion vs. jurisdiction in administrative-review context)
- Padron v. Lopez, 289 Kan. 1089 (2009) (statutory interpretation guiding exhaustion analysis)
- Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185 (2009) (unlimited review of KJRA-related interpretations)