JOHN v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL
2017 OK 81
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Johnson) sued Saint Francis Hospital, Neurological Surgery, Inc., and Dr. Douglas Koontz after decompressive laminectomies allegedly caused paralysis and other injuries.
- Plaintiff filed suit without the affidavit-of-merit required by Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 19.1 (expert opinion affidavit attesting pre-suit expert review and written opinion).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to attach the affidavit or, alternatively, to enforce the statute; plaintiff challenged § 19.1 as an unconstitutional impediment to court access and as a special law.
- The district court held § 19.1 unconstitutionally impeded access to the courts but rejected the special-law claim; it certified the interlocutory order for immediate review.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the statute’s constitutionality in light of prior decisions (Zeier and Wall) and struck § 19.1 as both an impermissible barrier to court access and an unconstitutional special law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 19.1 (affidavit-of-merit requirement) | § 19.1 conditions access to courts on ability to secure/pay for pre‑suit expert review; it creates an unconstitutional monetary/barrier to court access | § 19.1 applies uniformly to all claims requiring expert testimony and its indigency exemption (and removal of $40 fee) cures infirmities | Court held § 19.1 unconstitutionally burdens access to the courts and struck it |
| Whether § 19.1 is a prohibited special law under Art. V, § 46 | Targets a subset of negligence plaintiffs (those needing experts) and thus treats similarly situated persons differently | Statute is a general law because it applies to all actions where expert testimony is required | Court held § 19.1 is a special law that impermissibly regulates judicial practice/evidence and is therefore unconstitutional |
| Vagueness and practical administration (who is a "qualified expert"; which causes require expert testimony) | Statute’s class and "qualified expert" predicates are vague and replicate prior problems | Defendants contend definitions (in other statutes) and judicial gatekeeping resolve scope | Court found the class and qualification framework vague and unworkable, reinforcing the statute’s invalidity |
| Separation of powers / judicial discretion removed by mandatory dismissal provisions | Mandatory dismissal for noncompliance removes judicial discretion and usurps court authority | Defendants argue courts retain some discretion via extensions and indigency procedures | Court held the automatic dismissal provisions unconstitutionally curtail judicial discretion and adjudicative authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeier v. Zimmer, 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (medical-affidavit requirement held an unconstitutional special law and monetary barrier to court access)
- Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775 (Okla. 2013) (professional-affidavit requirement created a subclass and was an unconstitutional special law and access barrier)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (three-prong test for determining special vs. general laws)
- Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2005) (discussing separation of powers and judicial discretion)
- Robinson v. Oklahoma Nephrology Assoc., Inc., 154 P.3d 1250 (Okla. 2007) (elements of negligence and standards for pleading negligence)