GUILBEAU v. DURANT H.M.A., 533 P.3d 764

In 2016 Guilbeau miscarried at Durant HMA; hospital employees photographed the remains as part of a "bereavement program," allegedly manipulating the body into posed images.
Guilbeau alleges she did not consent and that viewing the photos caused further emotional trauma.
First suit (2016) alleged negligence (including negligent hiring/training) and IIED; trial court dismissed negligence claims.
Guilbeau dismissed the remaining IIED claim without prejudice in 2020 and did not appeal the negligence dismissal.
Second suit (2020) reasserted negligence, reasserted IIED, added an invasion-of-privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claim, and named Armor (a hospital employee). Defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court of Civil Appeals held negligence claims precluded, held the invasion claim untalented on the merits, and held joinder of Armor time-barred; the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed preclusion, reversed dismissal of the invasion claim, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligence claims in second suit are barred by claim preclusion	Guilbeau relied on statutory right to dismiss without prejudice and then refile	Defendants: prior dismissal of negligence was final; she should have appealed then—res judicata/claim preclusion bars relitigation	Barred: claim preclusion applies; negligence claims cannot be revived after she failed to appeal the earlier dismissal
Whether invasion-of-privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claim states a cause of action	Photos were taken/used nonconsensually, were highly offensive, and invaded Guilbeau's private affairs	Hospital: no reasonable expectation of privacy; images concern the deceased child (not plaintiff); no cognizable "relational" privacy right	Viable: SCOTOK held Guilbeau adequately pled intrusion upon seclusion and may proceed; COCA erred to dismiss on the merits
Whether the invasion-of-privacy claim was time-barred	Guilbeau: claim was timely in second suit	Hospital: claim was untimely	Not time-barred: COCA found claim timely; Oklahoma Supreme Court did not disturb that ruling
Whether adding Armor as a defendant was barred by limitations	Guilbeau: late joinder was permissible	Defendants: statute of limitations barred naming Armor	Barred: COCA held joinder of Armor time‑barred; Guilbeau did not challenge this ruling on certiorari

Brandt v. Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc., 998 P.2d 587 (Okla. 1999) (unilateral dismissal cannot nullify prior adverse rulings after final submission)
Tiffany v. Tiffany, 199 P.2d 606 (Okla. 1948) (right to dismiss without prejudice ends at final submission)
Vance v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 988 P.2d 1275 (Okla. 1999) (voluntary dismissal can be used to create finality for appeal of interlocutory orders)
McPosey v. Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, 57 P.2d 617 (Okla. 1936) (tort recovery for mental anguish from unauthorized autopsy/mutilation of a corpse)
McCormack v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 613 P.2d 737 (Okla. 1980) (outlines invasion-of-privacy tort variants)
Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc., 878 P.2d 360 (Okla. 1994) (intrusion-upon-seclusion elements: nonconsensual intrusion that would be highly offensive)