Skip to content

News · Elections and voting · Kansas

Marshall, former practice face medical-debt interest suit

A Kansas lawsuit alleges Roger Marshall and his former medical practice charged patients interest above the state limit.

The Ballot Kansas DeskNovember 2, 2026
Marshall, former practice face medical-debt interest suit

Key takeaways

  • Lawsuit alleges an 18% annual interest rate
  • Kansas law cited in the complaint sets a 15% limit
  • Meischa Zimmerman is the lead plaintiff
  • The complaint raises four causes of action
  • Marshall declined to comment

Lawsuit alleges excessive interest

A class-action lawsuit filed in Barton County District Court accuses U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall and Heartland Regional OBGYN, his former Great Bend medical practice, of routinely charging patients an illegal interest rate on medical debt.

The complaint says the practice assessed 18% annual interest on unpaid bills. It cites K.S.A. 16-207, which it says limits allowable interest to 15% per year.

The lawsuit alleges the collection practices disproportionately affected low-income, uninsured and underinsured mothers. Marshall, who previously worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist, declined to comment and directed questions to his communications staff. Staff members had not responded to emails Thursday night.

Lead plaintiff describes debt and arrests

Meischa Zimmerman, the lead plaintiff, was Marshall’s obstetrics patient in 2009. The complaint says the practice sued her over a bill for delivering her child and added 18% annual interest.

It also alleges that collection efforts connected to the debt resulted in Zimmerman being arrested three times. Reporting cited in the complaint found that Marshall sued 700 patients over unpaid medical bills and that patients were arrested in 81 cases after missing court dates.

Earlier in the week, 750 Kansas medical professionals signed a letter raising concerns about Marshall’s debt-collection practices.

Four claims before the court

The complaint raises four causes of action: common-law usury, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.

It argues that the defendants retained interest above the state limit, enforced excessive rates without disclosure and failed to act in patients’ best interests. The complaint also argues that filing deadlines should be paused because of alleged fraudulent concealment. The court will determine whether the claims can proceed and whether the case qualifies for class-action treatment.

What to watch

  • Whether the court allows the claims to proceed
  • Whether the case receives class-action status
  • How the defendants respond in court
  • How the court addresses filing-deadline arguments

Was this useful?

Related stories