Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Stinemetz v. KHPA

Stinemetz v. KHPA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,627 |Likes:
Published by Ron Sylvester
Kansas Court of Appeals decision holding that a Hill City woman’s freedom of religion was violated by a Health Policy Authority decision denying her request for an out-of-state bloodless liver transplant
Kansas Court of Appeals decision holding that a Hill City woman’s freedom of religion was violated by a Health Policy Authority decision denying her request for an out-of-state bloodless liver transplant

More info:

Published by: Ron Sylvester on May 04, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/04/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1No. 105,366IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSASM
ARY
D.
 
S
TINEMETZ
,
 Appellant 
,
 
v.K
ANSAS
H
EALTH
P
OLICY
A
UTHORITY
,
 Appellee
.
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT1.In an appeal from a decision by an administrative agency, generally a party islimited to the issues raised at the administrative hearing. But because administrativeagencies cannot rule on constitutional questions, the issue of constitutionality can beraised for the first time before a court of law.2.The scope of judicial review of a state administrative agency action is defined bythe Kansas Judicial Review Act, K.S.A. 77-601
et seq
. An appellate court exercises thesame limited review of the agency's action as does the district court; it is as though theappeal had been made directly to the appellate court.3.Whether a statute or regulation is constitutional as applied is a question of lawover which an appellate court has unlimited review.
 
24.In analyzing a claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice or belief.5.In analyzing a claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, where the State has in place a system of individualexemptions to a statute or regulation, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without a compelling reason.6.Section 7 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides greater protectionsconcerning the free exercise of religious beliefs than does the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution.7.To determine whether government action violates an individual's right to the freeexercise of religious beliefs under the Kansas Constitution, a court must determine: (1)whether the individual's religious beliefs are sincerely held; (2) whether the state actionburdens the individual's free exercise of religious beliefs; (3) whether the state interest isoverriding or compelling; and (4) whether the State uses the least restrictive means of achieving its interest. The individual bears the burden of proof to show that the first twosteps have been satisfied, and then the burden shifts to the State to prove that the last twosteps are met.
Appeal from Graham District Court; W
ILLIAM
B.
 
E
LLIOTT
, judge. Opinion filed May 4, 2011.Reversed and remanded with directions.
 
3
Corinne Petrik 
, of Kansas Legal Services, of Hays, and
 Lowell C. Paul,
of Kansas LegalServices, of Topeka, for appellant.
 Brian M. Vazquez
, of Kansas Health Policy Authority, for appellee.
Keturah A. Dunne
, associate general counsel, of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of NewYork, Inc., of Patterson, New York, and
Tony A. Potter 
, of Potter Law Office, P.A., of Hill City, for
amicus curiae
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
Before
 
H
ILL
,
 
P.J.,
 
M
ALONE
and
 
B
USER
,
 
JJ.M
ALONE
,
 
J
.:
Mary D. Stinemetz, a Kansas citizen and a practicing Jehovah'sWitness, needs a liver transplant, yet her religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions.There is a medically accepted technique, known as a bloodless liver transplant, in whichliver transplant surgery can be performed without a blood transfusion, although manymedical facilities do not consider this technique to be the safest procedure. Cost is not theissue. The available evidence indicates that the bloodless technique is less expensive thana procedure involving blood transfusions. There is no medical facility in Kansas thatperforms bloodless liver transplants, but the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha iswilling to perform the surgery.Because Stinemetz is a beneficiary of the Kansas Medical Assistance Program(Medicaid), she requested prior authorization from the Kansas Health Policy Authority(KHPA) for an out-of-state liver transplant. There is no question that the KHPA wouldauthorize a liver transplant for Stinemetz in Kansas, including a bloodless liver transplantif a medical facility was available in Kansas to perform the technique. However, theKHPA denied Stinemetz' request for prior authorization for out-of-state services on theground that her religious preference did not constitute a medical necessity. The districtcourt affirmed the KHPA's denial of prior authorization. Stinemetz appeals, asserting thatthe denial violated her rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->