ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK, 2017 OK 7

Background

Dr. Steven Anagnost was investigated by the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure (complaint filed June 18, 2010) and entered a consent decree resolving discipline on September 12, 2013.
On November 7, 2013 Anagnost sued several physicians and related entities for claims including negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
During discovery Anagnost sought the Board s investigative file; the Board withheld the file as confidential but provided parts to the Oklahoma Bar Association, which Anagnost reviewed in April 2014.
After seeing material from the Board file, Anagnost filed an amended petition on December 12, 2014 adding the Board and individual Board members and additional claims.
The Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) took effect November 1, 2014; defendants moved to dismiss under the OCPA. The trial court dismissed some negligence claims; the Court of Civil Appeals applied the OCPA and affirmed in part. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the OCPA applies retroactively.
The Supreme Court held the OCPA does not apply retroactively and reversed the trial court insofar as it applied the OCPA to this case, remanding for further proceedings (including relation-back analysis of the amended pleading).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the OCPA applies to claims in this pending suit (retroactivity)	Anagnost: OCPA cannot be applied to claims accrued before its effective date (constitutional protection of accrued causes)	Defendants: OCPA applies to this lawsuit and bars/dismisses claims arising or amended after OCPA effective date	Held: OCPA is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively; inapplicable to this suit
Whether the OCPA s dismissal procedure is merely procedural	Anagnost: OCPA effects substantive change (immunity, fee-shifting) and is not procedural	Defendants: OCPA is procedural screening tool to deter SLAPPs and may be applied to pendings suits	Held: OCPA creates substantive defenses, fee/recovery changes and functions as a complete bar in some cases — treated as substantive
Whether attorney-fee/sanctions provisions are retroactive	Anagnost: New fee/shifting remedies enlarge substantive rights and should operate prospectively	Defendants: Fee-shifting is procedural deterrent and applicable	Held: Fee and sanction provisions enlarge substantive rights and thus are prospective only
Whether the December 12, 2014 amended petition relates back to the Nov. 7, 2013 original petition	Anagnost: The amended pleading arises from same transaction and should relate back to the original filing date	Defendants: Amended pleading post-dates OCPA; OCPA should govern new claims/parties	Held: Relation-back under 12 O.S. §2015 may apply; remand for trial court to determine if statutory relation-back elements are satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Cole v. Silverado Food, Inc., 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (distinguishes remedial procedural statutes from substantive changes that cannot be applied retroactively)
Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1990) (presumption against retroactive application of statutes; procedural statutes may operate retrospectively only if they do not impair rights)
Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (cause of action accrues when suit could first be maintained; statutory changes that affect substantive rights do not apply to already-accrued claims)
Hammons v. Muskogee Medical Center Authority, 697 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1985) (constitutional protection for accrued causes prevents Legislature from abrogating existing rights after suit commenced)
Sudbury v. Deterding, 19 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2001) (statutory amendments increasing potential damages enlarge substantive rights and are prospective)
Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (measure and elements of damages are substantive and not purely remedial)