Kansas Supreme Court to Hear Delta Dental of Kansas Governance Case November 2, 2026
A legal battle that began with Kansas dentists challenging the power of Delta Dental of Kansas has reached the state’s highest court.
Dr. Mark P. Troilo and Dr. Christopher Leiszler, two Kansas dentists closely associated with United Dentists of Kansas, have spent years challenging sweeping governance changes adopted by the Delta Dental of Kansas board in December 2020. After an initial victory in Sedgwick County District Court and a significant reversal by the Kansas Court of Appeals in April 2026, the dispute is now headed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
According to Dr. Troilo, oral argument before the Kansas Supreme Court is scheduled for November 2, 2026. The justices are expected to hear arguments from both sides and issue a written decision at a later date.
The case is Troilo v. Yager, Kansas appellate case No. 128,771. Although United Dentists of Kansas has played a major role in organizing and supporting the dentists’ efforts, the plaintiffs in the litigation are Troilo and Leiszler. Delta Dental of Kansas is a nominal defendant along with current or former members of its board.
The dispute reaches back to growing tensions between Delta Dental of Kansas and participating dentists over reimbursement, insurance policies and the amount of influence dentists should have over the nonprofit corporation. Delta Dental of Kansas was formed in 1972 under the Kansas Nonprofit Dental Service Corporation Act. Its 10-member board includes six directors appointed through Kansas government and four directors elected by participating dentists. The Kansas Court of Appeals noted in its 2026 decision that Delta Dental had participating agreements with approximately 95% of licensed dentists in Kansas.
The confrontation intensified in 2019 and 2020 as Kansas dentists sought changes in Delta Dental policies and corporate governance. Troilo sent an October 2020 letter endorsed by 50 dentists asking the board to meet and work through their differences. United Dentists of Kansas subsequently emerged as an organized effort to advocate for participating dentists and help finance the legal challenge. Reporting at the time said more than 500 Kansas dentists contributed to the effort.
The defining event occurred during a Delta Dental board meeting in December 2020.
The six appointed directors approved major amendments to the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation and bylaws over the objections of the four dentist-elected directors. The changes altered the authority previously exercised by participating dentists, strengthened the board’s control over future amendments and changed provisions involving the terms and continued service of appointed directors.
Troilo and Leiszler challenged those actions in court.
In December 2021, Sedgwick County District Judge William Woolley handed the dentists a major victory. The district court concluded that Delta Dental’s existing governing documents required member approval of the amendments and that the board therefore lacked authority to impose the 2020 amendments on its own. The court also criticized the procedures used by the appointed directors and ordered Delta Dental to restore its previous Articles of Incorporation.
At the time, the ruling was widely viewed as an important victory for Kansas dentists. But it was not the end of the case.
Delta Dental of Kansas and the appointed directors appealed.
On April 17, 2026, the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed important portions of Judge Woolley’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the district court had misinterpreted Delta Dental’s pre-2020 Articles of Incorporation when it determined that participating dentists were required to approve amendments to the Articles.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the injunction granted by the district court. Judge Woolley had found the procedures used by the appointed directors inequitable but had not found that the directors breached their fiduciary duties. The appellate court concluded that equitable relief could not stand on that basis.
That ruling, however, did not end the dentists’ case or declare every aspect of the 2020 amendments lawful.
The Court of Appeals specifically sent the case back for consideration of remaining claims concerning the substance of the amendments, the legality of the bylaw amendments and whether the procedures used to enact them rendered any of the provisions illegal, invalid or unenforceable. The appellate court also rejected challenges to Troilo and Leiszler’s ability to bring the derivative action, including arguments concerning standing and whether they were required to make a formal demand on the board before filing suit.
The legal battle has therefore evolved considerably since the original 2021 ruling. It is no longer accurate to characterize the case simply as a victory by Kansas dentists over Delta Dental. The more complete history is a district-court victory for Troilo and Leiszler, followed by a significant appellate reversal, a remand of unresolved issues and now review by the Kansas Supreme Court.
That distinction matters because the larger questions raised by the litigation have never been limited to reimbursement rates.
At its core, this is a corporate-governance dispute about where power resides inside a nonprofit dental insurer created under Kansas law. How much authority belongs to participating dentist members? How much belongs to directors appointed by the governor and insurance commissioner? What power does the board have to alter its governing documents? And what legal protections exist when members believe a board has fundamentally changed the balance of authority within the corporation?
Those questions are particularly important in dentistry because Delta Dental occupies an unusual position in the profession. In Kansas alone, its network has included approximately 95% of licensed dentists. When an organization with that level of participation changes the rules governing the relationship between its board and its dentist members, the consequences can extend well beyond an ordinary corporate dispute.
Delta Dental has consistently defended its actions. The company argued during the original dispute that the board acted to protect the organization from proposals it believed could harm Delta Dental, employers and consumers. The dentists, by contrast, have argued that participating dentists were being deprived of meaningful governance rights and the ability to hold the organization accountable.
That disagreement is what makes the case worth watching nationally.
United Dentists of Kansas began as an effort by practicing dentists who believed individual doctors had little leverage when dealing with a dominant dental benefits company. What began as disagreements over reimbursements and insurance policies eventually turned into a legal examination of nonprofit governance, member rights, board authority and the relationship between dentists and the companies that administer dental benefits.
Five years after the original district-court ruling, that fight has reached the Kansas Supreme Court.
On November 2, 2026, the attorneys will make their arguments before the state’s highest court. The justices are unlikely to settle the dispute from the bench that day. The consequential moment will come later, when the court issues its written opinion and explains not only who prevails, but why.
Kansas dentists will be watching.
So should dentists everywhere.
Join the Conversation!