CRAWFORD v. OSU MEDICAL TRUST
2022 OK 25
| Okla. | 2022Background
- On June 16, 2017, minor C.C.C. was treated in Saint Francis Hospital ER by Dr. Sawyer Hall; C.C.C.'s eye was enucleated on June 21, 2017.
- Plaintiffs (Miranda and Colby Crawford) filed suit against Saint Francis on February 2, 2018, alleging Dr. Hall's misdiagnosis; they later learned (Feb 2018) Hall was an intern/resident employed by OSU Medical Trust (OSUMC), a public trust subject to the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA).
- Plaintiffs presented notice to OSUMC on August 22, 2018; OSUMC denied the claim as untimely under 51 O.S. § 156(B) (one‑year notice requirement).
- The trial court dismissed OSUMC for lack of jurisdiction for failure to give timely GTCA notice; the Crawfords appealed and sought tolling under the discovery rule and under §156(E) (incapacitation) and relied on 12 O.S. §96 (minor tolling).
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and considered whether the discovery rule applies to commencement of the GTCA one‑year notice period, whether it tolls until the plaintiff learns the tortfeasor is a state employee, whether §156(E) tolls for minority, and whether §96 applies when GTCA controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the discovery rule apply to commencement of the GTCA one‑year notice period for medical malpractice? | Crawfords: discovery rule applies, so notice period begins when plaintiffs had sufficient information (after expert review in Feb 2018). | OSUMC: GTCA's one‑year notice runs from date of loss; discovery rule shouldn’t extend notice as plaintiffs knew the injury earlier. | Held: Yes — if discovery rule applies to the underlying tort (medical negligence), it also governs commencement of the GTCA one‑year notice period. |
| Does the discovery rule toll the GTCA notice period until plaintiffs discovered the tortfeasor was employed by a GTCA entity? | Crawfords: notice tolled until they learned Dr. Hall was an OSUMC employee (Feb 2018). | OSUMC: identity of employer is not the discovery event that starts the rule; plaintiffs had sufficient information to state a claim at loss. | Held: No — discovery rule does not wait until plaintiff learns tortfeasor’s employer; one‑year period began when injury/loss occurred (June 21, 2017). |
| Does 51 O.S. §156(E) toll the GTCA notice period for incapacity due to minority? | Crawfords: §156(E) tolled notice because injured person was a minor and thus incapacitated. | OSUMC: §156(E) tolls only for incapacity resulting from the injury, not for minority status. | Held: No — §156(E) applies only to incapacitation from the injury (physical/medical incapacity) up to 90 days; minority does not toll the GTCA notice period. |
| Does general tolling under 12 O.S. §96 (minor savings) apply to extend GTCA notice periods? | Crawfords: §96’s seven‑year/other minor exceptions should apply to minors even when GTCA controls. | OSUMC: where GTCA controls, its specific timing/tolling rules govern and §96 does not apply. | Held: No — when GTCA controls, its specific notice/tolling scheme governs; §96 does not toll or extend GTCA notice periods. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calvert v. Swinford, 382 P.3d 1028 (Okla. 2016) (describing operation of discovery rule for accrual)
- Wing v. Lorton, 261 P.3d 1122 (Okla. 2011) (discovery rule applied to medical malpractice accrual)
- Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc., 247 P.3d 1183 (Okla. 2011) (explaining when plaintiff has sufficient information to state a claim)
- Watkins v. Cent. State Griffin Mem'l Hosp., 377 P.3d 124 (Okla. 2016) (estoppel and factual issues about when plaintiff knew sufficient facts under GTCA)
- Johns v. Wynnewood Sch. Bd. of Educ., 656 P.2d 248 (Okla. 1982) (GTCA notice provisions control over §96; minority does not toll political‑subdivision notice period)
- Hall v. GEO Group, Inc., 324 P.3d 399 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA notice is jurisdictional; §96 does not toll GTCA periods)
- Anderson v. Eichner, 890 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1994) (resident physicians/interns may be individually liable; GTCA treatment of interns/residents)
- Lykins v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 917 P.2d 1 (Okla. 1995) (GTCA notice requirements do not apply to suits against resident physicians or interns)