ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK
390 P.3d 707
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Dr. Steven Anagnost was investigated by the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision beginning in 2010 and entered a consent decree in 2013 after proceedings before the Board.
- In November 2013 Anagnost sued several physicians and their practices for negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference, emotional distress, and defamation.
- During discovery Anagnost sought the Board’s investigative file; the trial court deemed the file confidential, but the Oklahoma Bar Association later showed parts of the file to Anagnost in April 2014.
- After seeing those materials, Anagnost filed an amended petition in December 2014 adding the Board and Board members as defendants and asserting additional claims arising from the same underlying conduct.
- The Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) became effective November 1, 2014; defendants moved to dismiss under the OCPA and 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 and held the OCPA does not apply to claims that accrued before its effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OCPA applies retroactively to this case | Anagnost: OCPA should not apply; his cause accrued before OCPA effective date | Defendants: OCPA applies to amended petition filed after OCPA effective date | Held: OCPA does not apply retroactively; statute is substantive and prospective only |
| Whether the amended petition relates back to the original pleading date | Anagnost: amended claims arise from same transaction and thus relate back | Defendants: timing after OCPA effective date makes OCPA applicable | Held: Relation-back doctrine may apply; trial court should determine whether statutory conditions for relation back are met on remand |
| Whether the OCPA is procedural or substantive | Anagnost: OCPA alters substantive rights (immunity, fee shifting) so cannot apply retroactively | Defendants: OCPA is procedural/ remedial and governs motions to dismiss | Held: OCPA affects substantive rights (creates immunity/fee-shifting) and is not purely procedural |
| Whether statutes are presumed prospective or retroactive | Anagnost: constitutional protection prevents abrogation of accrued rights by later statutes | Defendants: legislative intent and statutory language could support retroactivity | Held: Absent clear legislative intent, statutes presume prospective effect; doubt resolved against retroactivity under Okla. Const. art. 5 §§52,54 |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Silverado Foods, 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (distinguishes procedural vs. substantive statutory changes and retroactivity limits)
- Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 295 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2012) (cause of action accrues at date it could first be maintained; statutes generally prospective)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1990) (presumption against retroactivity; remedial statutes may be retrospective if they do not affect vested 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 prospective)
- Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Company, 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (measure and elements of damages are substantive, not merely remedial)
- Steidley v. Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 383 P.3d 780 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (Court of Civil Appeals persuasive decision that OCPA is not retroactive)