Hardy Summers

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a husband and wife against doctors, their institute, and a hospital, which the trial court dismissed for failure to diligently prosecute the action. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and vacated the appellate opinion affirming it. The court reasoned that the statutory authority under 12 O.S. § 1083 for dismissing actions not at issue after one year of inactivity did not apply, because answers had been filed making the case at issue. It further held that the trial court erred by using the statute's criteria when exercising its inherent power to dismiss under Rule 9(b) of the Rules for District Courts.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved the State Insurance Fund suing Accord Human Resources to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. After an audit and negotiations, the parties agreed Accord owed a net amount of $43,757.60, but payment was delayed and the Fund refused it without including attorney's fees, interest, and costs. The trial court awarded the agreed sum plus prejudgment interest from the agreement date and costs, but denied attorney's fees; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court also affirmed. The court held that the action was based on an insurance contract rather than an open account or account stated, so no attorney's fees were available under 12 O.S. § 986 per prior precedent, but prejudgment interest was properly awarded under 23 O.S. § 22 and 15 O.S. § 266 from the date the amount became due. The opinion vacated the appellate decision but upheld the district court's rulings on these issues.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Michael Aston after he pled guilty to a felony charge of possessing methamphetamine and two misdemeanor drug possession charges. The court determined that Aston's criminal conduct violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, as the acts reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer and brought discredit to the profession. Considering evidence of mitigating factors such as Aston's completion of substance abuse treatment, ongoing counseling, family support, compliance with criminal probation, and a single relapse deemed common in such cases, as well as comparisons to similar disciplinary matters, the court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law followed by two years of conditioned supervision and ordered payment of costs.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a discovery dispute in an Oklahoma lawsuit where plaintiffs sought access to Farmers Insurance claim files to support their theory of a pattern of wrongful conduct regarding med-pay claims. The trial court ordered Farmers to manually review hundreds of thousands of paper and electronic files from 2000-2002 to identify complaints by Oklahoma insureds. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and issued a writ prohibiting enforcement of that broad order, finding it unduly burdensome given the estimated time and resources required. The court reasoned that while a party's inefficient record-keeping does not shield discoverable information, the parties should litigate the use of a statistical sampling method in the district court to balance discovery needs with practical limits.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Pentagon Academy, an unsuccessful applicant for a charter school, could compel the Tulsa School District to participate in binding arbitration after the district rejected its application under the Charter Schools Act. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the school district, holding that the applicant had no right to binding arbitration. The court reasoned that although 70 O.S. § 3-134(F) references the Dispute Resolution Act for mediation or binding arbitration, the Dispute Resolution Act authorizes only mediation services and contains no provisions or rules for binding arbitration, as none were ever promulgated or approved by the Supreme Court. Because the referenced statute provides no mechanism for compulsory arbitration, the court concluded that the statutory authority for such relief was absent.

procedure

The case involved a negligence action brought by parents on behalf of their minor child, John Jerod Watford, for injuries allegedly caused by defendants. The child turned eighteen during the suit's pendency, but the petition was not amended to reflect his status as an adult until after the statute of limitations had run on refiling following a voluntary dismissal. The trial court dismissed the claims against the West defendants as untimely. The court held that the amended petitions naming John Jerod as a plaintiff should have been permitted, reasoning that every action must be prosecuted by the real party in interest and that substitution of parties is liberally allowed under Oklahoma law when there is no change in the cause of action and the substituted party has a relation of interest to the original party, with such amendments relating back to the original filing. The court reversed the dismissals and remanded accordingly.

proceduretorts & liability