Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"K.S.A. 60-3412: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Kansas' Hired Gun Law," Jay Thomas, 11 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 18 (1988).

"Proof Of Causation: 3 Modes For Technical Issues," Jack Peggs, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 21, 22 (1989).

"Establishing and Maintaining Positive Relationships With Expert Consultants In a Litigation Practice," John L. White, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 20 (1991).

"Medical Malpractice in the 1990s: A Review of Changes in the Last Decade," Michael Sexton and Mark Sachse, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XV, No. 4, 10 (1992).

"Trial Techniques in Persuasion in a Medical Malpractice Case," Bradley J. Prochaska, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIX, No. 2, 8, 10 (1995).

"On the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Kansas," Mark D. Hinderks and Steve Leben, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 24 (1997).

"Dental Malpractice: A Description and Models of Negligence," Jack Peggs, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 6 (1999).

"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part I," William E. Westerbeke and Stephen R. McAllister, 49 K.L.R. 1037 (2001).

"Just What is 'Actual Clinical Practice'?" Matthew L. Bretz, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 25, No. 5, 14 (2002).

"Personal Preference Evidence of Expert Witnesses – Cox v. Lesko Revisited," Jim Howell, 36 J.K.A.J. No. 4, 4 (2013).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Cited; prohibition against use of "professional witnesses," qualification as expert witness examined. Wisker v. Hart, 244 K. 36, 766 P.2d 168 (1988).

2. Legislative limitation on recovery of noneconomic damages (60-19a01, 60-19a02) as not violating any constitutional rights determined. Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc., 246 K. 336, 340, 789 P.2d 541 (1990).

3. Doctor of osteopathy serving only at osteopathic hospitals qualified to testify as to standards regarding "medical" hospitals. Denton by Jamison v. U.S., 731 F.Supp. 1034 (1990).

4. Trial court's refusal to allow expert testimony on deviation from standard of care in medical malpractice case examined. Smith v. Milfeld, 19 K.A.2d 252, 254, 869 P.2d 748 (1994).

5. Whether expert witness in medical malpractice trial must be engaged in a clinical practice in same profession as defendant examined. Tompkins v. Bise, 20 K.A.2d 837, 838, 893 P.2d 262 (1995).

6. Expert witness in medical malpractice action not required to be licensed by same professional board as defendant health care provider. Tompkins v. Bise, 259 K. 39, 40, 910 P.2d 185 (1996).

7. Testimony required to establish the standard of care required. Heany v. Nibbelink, 23 K.A.2d 583, 932 P.2d 1046 (1997).

8. Fifty percent practice requirement intended to prohibit "professional witnesses"; never intended to require that standard of care opinions be by physicians in same specialty. Glassman v. Costello, 267 K. 509, 519, 986 P.2d 1050 (1999).

9. Statutory requirements for standard of care expert in medical malpractice action examined; actual clinical practice construed. Endorf v. Bohlender, 26 K.A.2d 855, 857, 995 P.2d 896 (2000).

10. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss action without prejudice granted when plaintiff's doctor didn't qualify as expert; court's ruling is not a final order subject to appeal, Bain v. Artzer, 271 K. 578, 25 P.3d 136 (2001).

11. Grudging admissions of defendant's witnesses sufficient to defeat summary judgment motion. George v. Pauly, 30 K.A.2d 444, 45 P.3d 1 (2001).

12. Plaintiff's expert disqualified for failure to meet requirements of 60-3412. Dawson v. Prager, 276 K. 373, 76 P.3d 1036 (2003).

13. No requirement in K.S.A. 60-3412 that proposed expert witness devote specific amount of time to healing arts practice. Williams v. Lawton, 38 K.A.2d 565, 170 P.3d 414 (2007).

14. Section discussed two-year period for applying 50% time test of K.S.A. 60-3412. Williams v. Lawton, 288 K. 768, 207 P.3d 1027 (2009).