Court: Health agency violated woman’s religious freedoms

The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled today that a state health agency violated a Hill City woman’s religious freedoms by denying her access to a bloodless liver transplant in another state.

Mary D. Stinemetz is a Jehovah’s Witness whose beliefs prohibit blood transfusions. There is a recognized procedure for doing the surgery without transfusions, but no facility in the state performs it. Stinemetz, however, found a hospital in Omaha willing to perform a bloodless transplant.

Because Stinemetz is a Medicaid recipient, however, she had to get approval from the Kansas Health Policy Authority, which denied her request to go out of state.

The Kansas Court of Appeals said:

“There is no question that the KHPA would authorize a liver transplant for Stinemetz in Kansas, including a bloodless liver transplant if a medical facility was available in Kansas to perform the technique. However, the KHPA denied Stinemetz’ request for prior authorization for out-of-state services on the ground that her religious preference did not constitute a medical necessity.”
The opinion written by Wichita’s Judge Tom Malone agreed with Stinemetz’s religious claims and ordered the KHPA to grant her request.

A bloodless procedure is less expensive. Under state regulations, the court pointed out, Stinemetz’s request would have been approved if she’d found a facility within 50 miles of the Kansas border, such as Kansas City, Mo.

Wrote Malone:

“Here, the KHPA has failed to suggest any state interest, much less a compelling interest, for denying Stinemetz’ request for prior authorization for the out-of-state liver transplant.”
Stinemetz has been awaiting the transplant since 2009.

Read the decision:

Stinemetz v. KHPA

Court of Appeals reconsiders case of ‘missing’ evidence

The Kansas Court of Appeals today rescinded an order, which originally criticized a prosecutor for making up evidence.

Then the evidence was found in the court file.

Presiding Judge Melissa Taylor Standridge said the court simply believed prosecutors, who said the evidence used in the trial of an accused sex predator didn’t exist. It was later found among some 3,000 pages of evidence.

Standridge wrote in the order that the court relies on lawyers presenting their case to know the facts and get them right.

“It would be an irrefutable waste of scare court resources to look for a needle in a haystack, once the owner of the needle tells us the needle does not exist.”

New arguments in the case of Robert C. Ontiberos are set for Nov. 3.

The order:

State v Ontiberos Order

Women judge Kansas appeals on anniversary of suffrage

From left: Melissa Taylor Standridge, Nancy Caplinger, Christel Marquardt

From left: the Hon. Melissa Taylor Standridge, Hon. Nancy Caplinger, Hon. Christel Marquardt

The judges say the date was merely a coincidence. But on the 88th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote in America, the first three-woman panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals convened today in Wichita.

Melissa Taylor Standridge, Nancy Caplinger and Christel E. Marquardt looked out in the gallery of lawyers waiting to argue their appeals and saw nothing but men.

“I said at the beginning this was an historic occasion, and I saw Christel out of the corner of my eye, thinking I was going to talk about her birthday,” joked Caplinger. “But this was the first time we’d had a three-woman panel of the Court of Appeals in Kansas, and we looked out and saw 13 men waiting to argue. How often does that happen?”

Not very often now. But it might have reminded Judge Marquardt of when she graduated Washburn Law School in 1974 and went to work as the only woman in private practice in Topeka.

“It’s like the end of a dream,” Marquardt said, “that we have a three-woman panel on the Court of Appeals. But it took too long to happen.”

Marquardt said the only difference in having three women on the panel, “When we get together, we can talk about things we wouldn’t ever do in front of the guys,” she said.

After they sat together for the first time in the second-floor courtroom at the historic federal courthouse in downtown Wichita, the city’s legal community marked the historic event with a reception at Bradley Fair.

On their journey, they’ve heard their colleagues on the Court of Appeals call them “girls.” And one nervous lawyer today addressed the judges as “ma’am.”

“Your honor” would be the appropriate term.