ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK, 2017 OK 7

Dr. Steven Anagnost sued several physicians and entities in November 2013 alleging negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation arising from an earlier Oklahoma Medical Board investigation and a 2013 consent decree.
During discovery Anagnost sought the Board's investigative file; the trial court deemed it confidential but the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) later showed portions to Anagnost in April 2014.
After seeing those materials, Anagnost filed an amended petition December 12, 2014 adding the Board and Board members as defendants and asserting additional claims; the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) became effective November 1, 2014.
Defendants moved to dismiss under the OCPA's expedited anti‑SLAPP dismissal provisions; the trial court dismissed some negligence claims but denied other relief; the Court of Civil Appeals applied the OCPA and reversed in part.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the OCPA applies retroactively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date and held the OCPA does not apply retroactively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the OCPA applies to Anagnost's suit	OCPA should not apply retroactively because the suit accrued before OCPA's effective date	OCPA applies and mandates dismissal under its procedures for suits related to petition/speech	OCPA is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively to this action; inapplicable to claims that accrued before Nov. 1, 2014
Whether OCPA's dismissal procedure is procedural/remedial or substantive	Anagnost: OCPA creates new defenses and remedies that would abrogate accrued rights	Defendants: OCPA is procedural (anti‑SLAPP) and can be applied to pending suits to deter meritless claims	Court: OCPA effects substantive changes (immunity, new fee awards) and so is prospective only
Whether Anagnost's December 2014 amended petition defeats nonretroactivity	Anagnost: Amendment relates back to original Nov. 2013 petition under OK statute, so OCPA timing is irrelevant	Defendants: Amended petition filed after OCPA effective date subjects claims to OCPA	Court: Relation‑back doctrine may apply; amendment likely relates back but trial court must decide on remand whether relation‑back requirements are met
Whether Legislature clearly expressed retroactive intent	Anagnost: No clear retroactive intent in OCPA	Defendants: Implicit application to ongoing suits by text and purpose	Court: Legislature did not clearly express retroactive intent; statutory doubt resolved against retroactivity

Cole v. Silverado Foods, 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (statutory changes affecting substantive rights do not apply retroactively)
Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (accrual date fixes substantive standards; later statutes cannot abrogate accrued rights)
Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 776 P.2d 847 (Okla. 1990) (presumption against retroactive effect; remedial statutes may apply retroactively but substantive changes may not)
Hammons v. Muskogee Medical Center Authority, 697 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1985) (Legislature cannot abrogate accrued causes of action after suit is commenced)
Sudbury v. Deterding, 19 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2001) (statutory increases in damages are substantive and prospective)
Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (measure and elements of damages are substantive)
Cowart v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 665 P.2d 315 (Okla. 1983) (cause of action accrues when plaintiff could first maintain suit)
Roth v. Mercy Health Ctr., Inc., 246 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2011) (relation‑back principles for amended pleadings)