JOHN v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL
2017 OK 81
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (John) sued Saint Francis Hospital, Neurological Surgery, Inc., and Dr. Koontz for alleged negligence and malpractice after multilevel cervical laminectomies resulting in paralysis and prolonged hospitalization.
- Plaintiff filed the petition without the affidavit of merit required by Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 19.1 (statute requiring pre‑filing expert review, written opinion, and an affidavit attesting to consultation and merit).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply with § 19.1 (or alternatively to require indigency exception proof); plaintiff challenged the statute as an unconstitutional impediment to court access and as a forbidden special law.
- The Tulsa County district court held § 19.1 unconstitutionally impeded access to the courts but rejected the special‑law challenge; it certified the order for interlocutory review.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo and held § 19.1 unconstitutional as both an impermissible barrier to court access (Art. II, § 6) and an unconstitutional special law (Art. V, § 46), striking the statute and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19.1 unlawfully conditions court access on pre‑petition expert review and opinion | § 19.1 creates a substantial, monetary and procedural impediment to constitutional right of access to courts | Statute legitimately weeds out meritless claims and is a permissible procedural requirement | Held unconstitutional — it imposes an impermissible barrier to court access under Art. II, § 6 |
| Whether § 19.1 is an unconstitutional special law under Art. V, § 46 | John argued the statute targets a subclass (cases requiring expert testimony) for different treatment and thus is a forbidden special law | Defendants argued the law uniformly applies to all actions requiring expert testimony and is therefore general | Held unconstitutional — statute singles out less than entire class and regulates judicial practice/evidence, violating the special‑law prohibition |
| Whether statutory changes (broader wording, indigency mechanism) cured prior constitutional defects (Zeier/Wall) | Plaintiff: changes do not cure the infirmity; statute remains functionally identical and burdensome | Defendants: broadened scope and indigency provisions address prior rulings and make it constitutional | Held: prior infirmities remain; textual/functional identity with predecessors means the statute is still unconstitutional |
| Whether § 19.1's definitions and mandatory dismissal provisions are workable and within judicial authority | Plaintiff: statute improperly removes judicial discretion, is vague as to "qualified expert" and class, and mandates dismissal | Defendants: statute provides sufficient framework and promotes efficiency | Held: statute is vague in class/qualification, usurps judicial discretion, and contains mandatory dismissals that are constitutionally defective |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeier v. Zimmer, 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (struck prior medical‑affidavit requirement as unconstitutional special law and barrier to court access)
- Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775 (Okla. 2013) (held professional‑negligence affidavit requirement unconstitutional for creating a subclass and economic barrier)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (articulated three‑prong test to identify special vs. general laws)
- Lee v. Bueno, 381 P.3d 736 (Okla. 2016) (discussed affidavit requirements and burdens on plaintiffs)