Sleeth v. Sedan City Hospital
298 Kan. 853
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Wrongful death claim against a municipal hospital and its employee arising from alleged negligent insertion of a feeding tube.
- K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-105b(d) requires written notice to a municipality before suit and a 120-day investigation/review period.
- District court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to noncompliance; Court of Appeals panel reinstated, then conflicted on rationale.
- Plaintiffs’ notices consisted of February 21, 2010 to the hospital administrator and March–May 2010 communications to insurer; lack of damages statement in Feb. 21 letter noted.
- Court holds substantial compliance requires a damages statement; 120-day period is a jurisdictional condition precedent to filing, not waivable; premature filing defeats jurisdiction.
- Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals on the jurisdictional issue and affirms the district court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Feb. 21 letter alone satisfied notice requirements. | Sleeths contend Feb. 21 letter, viewed with May 2 letter, substantially complied. | Feb. 21 letter lacked damages statement and proper recipient; not substantial compliance. | No; Feb. 21 letter alone did not substantially comply. |
| Whether combining Feb. 21 and May 2 letters satisfies notice requirements. | Combination could fulfill statutory content if proper recipients and damages stated. | Combination still lacked proper notice to clerk/governing body and timely completion of 120-day period. | No; even assuming multiple writings, the 120-day period had not expired and cannot be waived. |
| Whether the 120-day review period is jurisdictional and waivable. | If treated as waivable, plaintiffs could trigger jurisdiction by filing early and waiting for waiver. | 120-day period is a nonwaivable condition precedent to filing; essential to jurisdiction. | Jurisdictional; cannot be waived. |
| Whether notice to hospital administrator and insurer suffices to notify municipality. | Notice to administrator and insurer should count as notice to municipality. | Not sufficient because notice must be to clerk or governing body and contain damages. | Notice to administrator/insurer does not independently cure failure to provide damages and proper statutory recipients. |
| Whether filing August 2, 2010 was premature under 120-day rule. | May 2 damages letter should start 120-day clock, triggering later filing. | Feb. 21 damages gap means 120-day period never started; filing premature. | Premature; constitutes lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shultz, 297 Kan. 769 (Kan. 2013) (statutory notice must enable full investigation; substantial compliance suffices)
- Gessner v. Phillips County Comm’rs, 270 Kan. 78 (Kan. 2000) (notice as prerequisite; timing and jurisdictional implications)
- Kau Kau Take Home No. 1 v. City of Wichita, 281 Kan. 1185 (Kan. 2006) (notice requirements are jurisdictional; commencement cannot occur without notice)
- Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390 (Kan. 2009) (exhaustion/exhaustion-like principles informing jurisdictional analysis)
- Steed v. McPherson Area Solid Waste Utility, 43 Kan. App. 2d 75 (Kan. App. 2010) (addressing whether notice implicates subject matter jurisdiction)