Opinion ID: 2635288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Common-Law Causes of Action in Kansas

Text: Next, Dr. Amrani argues that Williamson is attempting to creatively plead what is really a claim for medical malpractice. Dr. Amrani cites a series of Kansas cases holding that a plaintiff cannot bring a claim for breach of contract or fraud where the gravamen of the claim is medical malpractice. See Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 220 Kan. 371, 374-76, 552 P.2d 885 (1976) (action for failure of medical center to furnish all needed treatment sounded in tort; action could not be characterized as one in contract in order to avoid bar of governmental immunity); Travis v. Bishoff, 143 Kan. 283, 284-85, 54 P.2d 955 (1936) (action against surgeon for failure to perform operation according to proper surgical practice was one for malpractice even though petition stated action was for breach of contract). Cf. Noel v. Proud, 189 Kan. 6, Syl. ¶ 1, 367 P.2d 61 (1961) (3-year statute of limitations on oral contracts, rather than 2-year statute for torts, applied to patient's action against physician for alleged breach of warranty that surgery would not worsen patient's condition). In Bonin v. Vannaman, 261 Kan. 199, 929 P.2d 754 (1996), this court held that where a plaintiff alleged her physician failed to disclose information on a chest x-ray and failed to diagnose her condition, the cause of action sounded in medical malpractice and not fraud even though the alleged conduct technically fulfilled all the elements of a claim for fraud by silence. Thus, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment could not be applied to extend the statute of limitations. The court stated: This does not mean that a doctor can never be liable for fraud or breach of contract. Instead, this simply means that a fraud or breach of contract cause of action can only be based upon a physician's misconduct if that misconduct is beyond a breach of the legal duty which every doctor has the obligation to uphold. [Citation omitted.] As this court stated in Noel, 189 Kan. at 10[, 367 P.2d 61] (quoting Calabrese v. Bickley, 208 Misc. 407, 408-09, 143 N.Y.S.2d 846 [1955], aff'd as modified 1 App.Div.2d 874, 150 N.Y.S.2d 542 [1956]): `As malpractice covers every way in which a patient is injured through the dereliction of a doctor in his professional capacity, the approach, depending on the facts, can be through any of several familiar forms of action. But no matter what the approach, it remains an action for malpractice, not one for deceit, contract or anything else. A well recognized ground for recovery is where a physician represents that he has the skill to perform a certain operation when in fact he does not. This form of action requires the same elements of proof that an action in fraud requires, yet it could not be successfully disputed that as between the two it is an action for malpractice. '  Bonin, 261 Kan. at 210-11, 929 P.2d 754. As a counter to Bonin, Williamson cites Robinson v. Shah, 23 Kan.App.2d 812, 936 P.2d 784 (1997), a case which held that a physician's concealment of underlying malpractice gave rise to a fraud claim separate from the malpractice claim. Dr. Amrani argues that, as in Bonin, the alleged misconduct in this case was part of the doctor's legal duty of informed consent. Williamson responds that knowingly selling a patient a surgery that has a small chance of success, while promising that the surgery has a great chance of success, is more than a mere failure of informed consentit is a deceptive act or practice under the KCPA. Bonin and the other above cited cases provide little guidance because they all deal with common-law causes of action. None of the cases deal with a claim under the KCPA, wherein the legislature has provided for a specific statutory cause of action. Furthermore, many of the cases cited by Dr. Amrani are focused on identifying a particular cause of action for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations. In the context of the KCPA, a different kind of reasoning has been applied. Our courts have recognized that a claim under the KCPA is an action upon a liability created by statute; therefore, the applicable statute of limitations is the 3-year period provided in K.S.A. 60-512(2); see Haag v. Dry Basement, Inc., 11 Kan.App.2d 649, 732 P.2d 392, Syl., 11 Kan.App.2d 649, 732 P.2d 392, rev. denied 241 Kan. 838 (1987); see also Alexander v. Certified Master Builders Corp., 268 Kan. 812, 819-24, 1 P.3d 899 (2000) (clarifying that different statutes of limitation apply depending upon whether action under KCPA seeks damages or statutory penalty; where plaintiff sought both civil penalties and actual damages, action was subject to 3-year limitations period of 60-512[2], i.e., action upon liability created by statute). In Haag, the defendant argued that because the plaintiff's KCPA claim was one based on fraud, the 2-year statute of limitations contained in K.S.A. 60-513(a)(3) barred the plaintiff's claim. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that an action for commonlaw fraud is not the same as an action under the KCPA because under the KCPA intent to defraud need not be proven. The court held that because a supplier's liability to a consumer is created by the provisions of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, the 3-year statute of limitations for an action upon a liability created by statute, K.S.A. 60-512(2), applies to suits brought under the Act. 11 Kan.App.2d at 650, 732 P.2d 392. Although we are not concerned here with the applicable statute of limitations, Haag reinforces the point that actions under the KCPA are statutorily created causes of action. Nothing prohibits the legislature from creating a statutory remedy even in situations where a common-law remedy may be available. The plain language of the KCPA provides such a statutory remedy since a physician provides a service to a consumer.