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

The case involved a divorced couple's agreement in their 1993 divorce decree to keep child support open for their special-needs child beyond age 18 or high school graduation, with the court retaining jurisdiction to determine further support needs. After the child turned 21 and graduated high school, the mother sought enforcement of medical insurance and additional support from the father, who moved to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction for post-21 support. The trial court granted the dismissal, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the consent decree allowed the parties to contract for support obligations exceeding statutory requirements, making the agreement enforceable.

family law

The case involved the State Insurance Fund suing JOA, Inc. for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. After the trial court ruled in favor of JOA on the underlying claim, it granted JOA's motion for attorney's fees and costs under 12 O.S. § 986 on an open account theory. The Fund appealed, contending that sovereign immunity barred any fee award under that statute, but the court observed that the Fund had stipulated to the applicability of § 986 and that sovereign immunity does not bar actions based on the Fund's contractual obligations. The court reasoned that stipulations concerning waivable personal rights are binding and that the fee award was therefore proper.

procedurebusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved the State Insurance Fund suing a nursing home to recover approximately $52,000 in workers' compensation insurance premiums allegedly owed for services by contractors from 1994 to 1996. The trial court dismissed the suit after sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, and denied the nursing home's request for attorney's fees. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed whether the nursing home, as the prevailing party, was entitled to attorney's fees under statutes governing open accounts or frivolous suits by state agencies. The court held that the action to recover insurance premiums did not qualify as an open account or other enumerated contract type under 12 O.S. § 936, and thus no fees were awardable on that basis.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether married joint debtors living together on rural property in Oklahoma could each claim a separate 160-acre homestead exemption under 1997 amendments to 31 O.S. § 2, for a combined total of 320 acres, in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The court answered no, holding that spouses sharing the same homestead may claim only one exemption not exceeding 160 acres. The 1997 changes substituting the word "person" for prior references to "family" and "single, adult person" were viewed as streamlining language rather than expanding entitlements. The court reasoned that the homestead right is created and limited by the state constitution and statutes, longstanding precedent treats the family homestead as a single unit, and liberal construction of exemptions cannot override legislative intent or established limits.

propertyfamily law

The case involved parents suing the City of Del City after their child fell into an uncovered sanitary sewer manhole on a city-owned vacant lot near athletic facilities, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the property in a safe condition. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on the ground that the claim was barred by the Governmental Tort Claims Act's exemption for inspection powers or functions under 51 O.S. Supp. 2000 § 155(13). On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed that holding, ruling that the exemption for inspection powers does not extend to acts of maintenance of real property. The court reasoned that the statute's text distinguishes inspection from maintenance (with the latter explicitly exempted only in other specific contexts like prisons or highways), and interpreting the inspection exemption to cover maintenance would render those other provisions superfluous.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Oklahoma attorney R. Scott Scroggs based on his handling of four client matters, including allegations that he failed to file documents or provide promised representation in a discrimination complaint, deposited advance filing fees into his operating account rather than a trust account, commingled client funds, delayed refunding unearned fees after termination, and made inconsistent statements about filing requirements. The Oklahoma Supreme Court exercised its exclusive original jurisdiction to conduct a de novo review of the trial panel record, without deference to the panel's findings or recommendations for a one-year suspension. The court analyzed the evidence against specific provisions of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, such as Rule 1.15 on safekeeping client property and prompt accounting, Rule 8.4(c) on conduct involving dishonesty, and rules on competence and diligence, while noting inconsistencies in testimony and the attorney's admissions to certain violations. It referenced precedent on appropriate sanctions for multiple violations involving client funds.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between two brothers whose adjoining properties shared a driveway, with additional claims regarding a jointly used shop building and a destroyed dog pen. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of an easement by implication for the driveway based on its prior use and reasonable necessity for access to one brother's property. It reversed the award of damages for the shop building as contrary to the evidence and affirmed the denial of damages for the dog pen due to lack of proof on its value. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the shop building issue.

property

The case involved a worker injured in 1995 who filed a workers' compensation claim but did not request a hearing and final determination until filing a Form 9 in 2001. The court decided that the claim was time-barred and properly dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Court for want of prosecution under 85 O.S. § 48(B). The core reasoning was that the statute requires a good-faith request for final determination within three years from filing the claim or the last payment of compensation, early Form 9 filings in 1995 did not satisfy this requirement, and the 1997 amendment shortening the period from five to three years applied to the procedural limitations issue, with more than three years having elapsed since the June 1995 last payment.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case addressed whether Oklahoma statute 21 O.S.1991 § 65 suspends an incarcerated felon's capacity to file a civil tort action, such as one for abuse of process against former attorneys, when the claim does not involve constitutional rights. The trial court had dismissed the suit based on a prior Court of Civil Appeals decision interpreting the statute to deprive inmates of such civil rights during imprisonment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the statute does not impose such a suspension, relying on longstanding precedent like Byers v. Sun Savings Bank that rejects the notion of prisoners being civilly dead and on the state constitution's guarantee of access to the courts under Article 2, Section 6. The Court overruled the conflicting Welborn v. Wallace decision, reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing after they were allegedly injured by airborne chemicals inhaled while attending a circus performance at the State Fair Arena. The trial court granted defendants' motion in limine and excluded the plaintiffs' expert witness from testifying on the cause of the injuries, applying the standards set forth in Daubert and Kumho. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction over this issue of first impression to determine whether those federal evidentiary standards apply in Oklahoma civil proceedings. The court held that they do apply because the Oklahoma Evidence Code was modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence, and issued a writ instructing the trial court to provide the parties an opportunity to address the admissibility issues under the proper Daubert analysis.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a certified question from federal court on whether the notice requirements of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act apply to tort claims, such as tortious interference with employment contracts, alleged against a state employee for on-the-job conduct outside the scope of employment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that the Act's notice provisions do not apply to such claims against an employee in his or her individual capacity. The court reasoned that the GTCA distinguishes between acts within and outside the scope of employment, with the notice requirements designed solely to protect governmental entities from liability for the former, while claims based on the latter seek to impose personal liability on the individual and thus fall outside the Act's procedural framework.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant who was injured on the job by a third-party tortfeasor, settled a negligence suit against that party for $300,000, and paid $85,000 of the proceeds to his employer and its insurer to release their subrogation rights for prior benefits paid. The employer and insurer then sought an order under 85 O.S.1991 § 44(a) to suspend further compensation payments until the claimant could prove that the net amount he received from the settlement fell short of his statutory entitlement. The trial court and three-judge panel granted the requested relief, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed; on certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reinstated the original orders. The Court held that the statute limits the employer's liability to any deficiency between the claimant's net recovery and the compensation due under the Act, and that prior decisions such as Milliser and Keeney correctly require benefits to be held in abeyance until such a deficiency is shown. This construction prevents double recovery while preserving the claimant's right to seek additional benefits if the net settlement proves inadequate.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association seeking reciprocal professional discipline against Timothy William Heinen, a lawyer licensed in Texas who had submitted a resignation pending disciplinary proceedings there, which the Texas Supreme Court accepted. The court addressed whether the Texas proceeding constituted an adjudication of misconduct sufficient to trigger discipline in Oklahoma under Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Heinen argued that no misconduct had been adjudicated because the Texas order merely accepted his resignation without an evidentiary hearing or final ruling on the allegations. The court reasoned that under Texas disciplinary rules, the detailed statement of professional misconduct became conclusively established when Heinen did not withdraw his resignation motion, allowing the Oklahoma court to treat those facts as established without relitigation while still determining the appropriate sanction. The court resolved that the Texas proceeding provided a valid basis for proceeding with reciprocal discipline in Oklahoma.

procedure

The case concerned whether the Oklahoma Department of Human Services could lawfully outsource management of the Robert M. Greer Center facility to a private contractor without express statutory authorization, along with a related shared goods and services agreement, and whether the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the contracts as taxpayers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they had standing and that the outsourcing was improper absent specific legislative approval. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the standing determination but reversed the summary judgment, holding that state agencies possess implied contractual powers necessary for the effective performance of their express statutory duties when express authority is absent.

business & regulatorylabor & employment