Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03215/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dan J. Aves
Not Party
Darcy M. Aves
Not Party
Faye E. Aves
Not Party
Patrick F. Kelly
Respondent
Nasreen G. Shah
Not Party
Ron Todd
Petitioner

Document Text:

l 

f 

41 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RON TODD, as Insurance Commissioner 

of the State of Kansas, as 

Administrator of the Health Care 

Stabilization Fund, 

Petitioner, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NO,V 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

v. ) No. 91-3215 

) (D.C. No. 88-1669) 

PATRICK F. KELLY, Chief Judge of the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas, 

) (D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent . ) 

DARCY M. AVES, a minor, by and through ) 

DAN J. AVES and FAYE E. AVES, her mother) 

and father, natural guardians and next ) 

friends; and DARCY M. AVES, and DAN J. ) 

AVES and FAYE E. AVES, individually, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

NASREEN G. SHAH, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

RON TODD, Commissioner of Insurance of 

the State of Kansas, as Administrator 

of the Health Care Stabilization Fund, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3224 

(D.C. No. 88-1669-K) 

(D. Kan.) 

Appellate Case: 91-3215 Document: 010110148654 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 1 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

These consolidated cases are before us on the court's order 

to show cause why No. 91-3215 (petition for writ of mandamus) 

should not be denied and No. 91-3224 (appeal from district court's 

order directing petitioner-appellant to post a bond in the full 

amount of the judgment obtained in the district court case on 

appeal as our No. 91-3206, Aves v. Shah) dismissed. 

Pursuant to our order entered August 19, 1991, the Supreme 

Court of the State of Kansas accepted and has now answered our 

certified question on the maximum bond required to be posted by 

the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Kansas and/or the 

appellant health care provider as a condition for stay of 

execution of judgment pending appeal. The Supreme Court of the 

State of Kansas ruled as follows: 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3215 Document: 010110148654 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 2 
( 

I 

The answer to the certified question is: (a) To stay 

execution against the health care provider, the 

Commissioner must provide a bond in the amount of its 

statutory liability of not more than $3,000,000 plus 

interest thereon and costs, and the health care provider 

must provide a bond for the excess of any judgment over 

$3,000,000 plus interest on the excess and costs, and 

(b) the bond of the Commissioner as described in (a) 

shall be sufficient to stay the enforcement of any claim 

against the Fund. 

Todd v. Kelly. 1992 Kan. LEXIS, 137 *32 (Kan. 1992). 

The Insurance Commissioner has posted the $3,000,000 bond 

with the district court. This is all he is required to do in 

order to stay execution of judgment against the Health Care 

Stabilization Fund, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3401 et seg., pending our 

resolution of the underlying appeal in No. 91-3206. 

Accordingly, the orders of the district court that are the 

subject of the appeal, No. 91-3224, are REVERSED insofar as they 

are inconsistent with this order and judgment and otherwise 

AFFIRMED. The petition for writ of mandamus, No. 91-3215, is 

DENIED as moot. The matter is REMANDED to the district court for 

further proceedings on the posting of any additional bond by the 

health care provider. 

The mandate in No. 91-3224 shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3215 Document: 010110148654 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 3