ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK
2017 OK 7
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Dr. Steven Anagnost sued several physicians and their practices in Nov. 2013 for claims including negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference, IIED, and defamation arising from an Oklahoma Medical Board investigation and a 2013 consent order.
- During discovery Anagnost sought the Board's investigative file; the Board refused but allowed the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) to review portions and show him documents in April 2014.
- After learning new information from the OBA, Anagnost filed an amended petition on Dec. 12, 2014 adding the Board and individual board members as defendants and asserting additional claims.
- The Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA), an anti‑SLAPP statute, became effective Nov. 1, 2014; defendants moved to dismiss under the OCPA's new dismissal procedures.
- The trial court dismissed some negligence claims under the OCPA; 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.
- The Supreme Court held the OCPA does not apply retroactively to claims that accrued before its effective date and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OCPA applies to Anagnost's suit/amended pleading | OCPA cannot be applied retroactively because Anagnost's cause accrued before Nov. 1, 2014 | OCPA applies to the amended petition filed Dec. 12, 2014 and permits dismissal | OCPA does not apply retroactively to bar or dismiss claims that accrued before its effective date; remanded to determine relation‑back under §2015 |
| Whether OCPA is procedural (thus retroactive) or substantive | OCPA alters remedies but cannot destroy accrued rights; substantive protections in Constitution prevent retroactive application | OCPA is procedural/ remedial anti‑SLAPP mechanism to be applied to pending suits | Court: OCPA effects are substantive (creates defenses, fee awards, potential complete bar) and thus prospective only |
| Whether amendments relate back to original petition so OCPA timing is irrelevant | Anagnost: amended claims arise from same transaction and may relate back to original Nov. 2013 filing | Defendants: amended petition filed after OCPA effective date so OCPA should govern | Court: relation‑back under 12 O.S. §2015 may apply; trial court to decide on remand whether §2015 conditions are met |
| Whether Legislature clearly expressed intent for retroactive application | Anagnost: no clear legislative intent for retroactivity exists | Defendants: statutory language permits application to this litigation | Court: no clear legislative intent; doubts resolved against retroactivity per Oklahoma precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Silverado Food, Inc., 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (distinguishes procedural vs. substantive statutory changes and limits retroactivity)
- Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (accrual date fixes substantive rights; later statutes cannot abrogate accrued rights)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1990) (statutes are prospective unless Legislature clearly provides otherwise; remedial statutes may be retroactive if they do not affect substantive rights)
- Hammons v. Muskogee Medical Center Authority, 697 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1985) (constitutional protection against legislative abrogation of accrued causes of action)
- Sudbury v. Deterding, 19 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2001) (statutory amendments that enlarge damages are substantive and generally operate prospectively)