Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Malone will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court’s September 15 docket that will take place by videoconference.
After hearing oral arguments, Malonewill join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.
"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Malone hearing a case with us,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision. We thank him for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload in to handle."
Malone was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2003 by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
“It's always a rewarding experience to hear a case with the Supreme Court and be a part of the final decision-making process in the Kansas judicial branch," said Malone.
Malone, a Wichita native, received a bachelor's degree from Newman University in Wichita and a law degree from Washburn University School of Law. After a 12-year career in private practice in Wichita, he was elected district judge in Sedgwick County in 1990. He was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2003.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live at YouTube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.
Malone will join justices by video conference at 9 a.m. Wednesday, September 15, to hear oral arguments in:
Appeal No. 121,447: Catherine Roll, a disabled person, by and through her co-guardians Teresa Roll Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns v. Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Mike Dixon, Superintendent of the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center
Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Roll is a patient at Parsons State Hospital, where she has been treated for decades for an intellectual disability and schizophrenia. In 2016, the Department of Aging and Disability Services, with Parsons, indicated the intent to transfer Roll to a more integrated community-based program. Roll’s guardians sought a permanent injunction to prevent the transfer, alleging the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Social Security Act prevented the Department from transferring her without her consent.The district court found that the Department had shown that the treatment available at a community-based program was appropriate to meet Roll’s needs. The court also found that the ADA nor SSA prevented transferring her to a different program. The district court and the Court of Appeals upheld the transfer. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied rules of statutory interpretation concerning the ADA and the SSA; and 2) the record contradicted the Court of Appeals and the district court’s conclusions that Roll was not in “Active Treatment.”