JOHN v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL
2017 OK 81
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Patient underwent multilevel cervical laminectomies and later sued Saint Francis Hospital, Neurological Surgery, Inc., and Dr. Douglas Koontz for negligence and related claims in 2016.
- Patient did not attach a pre‑petition expert affidavit as required by Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 19.1 and thus defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply (or alternatively sought an indigency exception).
- The district court found § 19.1 unconstitutionally burdened access to courts and certified the interlocutory order for immediate review; the Attorney General intervened supporting enforcement of the statute.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether § 19.1 (the third legislative incarnation of an affidavit‑of‑merit requirement) is constitutional in light of prior precedent.
- The Court concluded § 19.1 (like its predecessors) (1) imposes an unconstitutional monetary/ procedural barrier to court access under Okla. Const. art. II, § 6 and (2) is an impermissible special law under art. V, § 46, and therefore struck § 19.1.
- The district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part; the cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19.1 unconstitutionally burdens access to courts (Art. II § 6) | John: § 19.1 conditions court access on paying for and obtaining a pre‑petition expert opinion, creating an economic and procedural barrier | Petitioners: statute is a legitimate gatekeeping measure to deter frivolous claims and indigency procedures cure any burden | Held: § 19.1 imposes an unconstitutional impediment to access to courts; indigency provisions do not cure the constitutional defect |
| Whether § 19.1 is a prohibited special law (Art. V § 46) | John: § 19.1 creates a subclass (actions requiring expert testimony) and treats them differently from general negligence plaintiffs | Petitioners: statute applies broadly to any action needing expert testimony and is therefore general, not special | Held: § 19.1 targets a subset of negligence plaintiffs and is an unconstitutional special law regulating judicial practice/evidence |
| Vagueness / scope and effect on judicial authority (including definition of "qualified expert") | John: statute's class language and reliance on definitions in a separate medical statute render application vague and remove judicial discretion | Petitioners: statute is administrable and applies uniformly to expert‑required cases | Held: statute is vague as to class and expert qualifications, intrudes on courts' adjudicative discretion, and mandates dismissal in a manner that usurps judicial authority |
| Evidentiary consequences of pre‑petition opinion requirement | John: forcing pre‑petition expert review that is inadmissible at trial is arbitrary and pointless | Petitioners: confidentiality and procedural limits serve policy objectives while enabling early screening | Held: requirement is arbitrary—plaintiffs must pay for an expert opinion that cannot be used at trial, reinforcing the statute's unconstitutional character |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeier v. Zimmer, 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (struck medical‑malpractice affidavit requirement as an unconstitutional special law and barrier to court access)
- Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775 (Okla. 2013) (invalidated professional‑negligence affidavit requirement; reaffirmed Zeier and found creation of a subclass of tort victims)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (articulated three‑prong test for determining special vs. general law under Oklahoma Constitution)
- Robinson v. Oklahoma Nephrology Assocs., 154 P.3d 1250 (Okla. 2007) (describes elements of negligence and the standards for pleading such claims)