LEE v. BUENO
2016 OK 97
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Lee was injured in a 2014 rear-end collision, incurred medical bills (~$10,154) of which insurers were billed ~$8,112.81 and paid $2,845.11; he sued Bueno for > $25,000.
- Before discovery, Lee sought a declaratory judgment that 12 O.S. 2011 § 3009.1 (limits admissible medical-expense evidence to amounts paid/owed, not billed) is unconstitutional.
- Trial court denied relief and certified the interlocutory order for appeal; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Lee argued § 3009.1: is an unconstitutional special law (Art. 5, §46), denies court access and jury trial (Art. 2, §§6 & 19), violates due process (Art. 2, §7), breaches separation of powers (Art. 4, §1), and abolishes the collateral source rule for insured plaintiffs.
- The Court reviewed the statute de novo, applied the presumption of constitutionality, and considered prior decisions on special laws and evidentiary/ procedural classifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3009.1 is an unconstitutional special law (Art. 5, §46) | Lee: statute creates impermissible subclasses (e.g., insured v. uninsured or depending on provider/insurer actions) and treats them differently | Statute applies uniformly to all personal-injury plaintiffs by limiting admissible evidence to amounts paid or owed — prevents windfalls | Court: Not a special law; §3009.1 applies uniformly and aims to ensure equal outcomes; upheld |
| Whether § 3009.1 denies access to courts or the right to jury trial (Arts. 2, §§6 & 19) | Lee: limits on admissible evidence effectively deny access and impair jury's role to award damages | Statute does not bar filing or trial; evidence rules legitimately limit what jury may consider | Court: No violation; statute does not deny access or unconstitutionally remove jury factfinding |
| Whether § 3009.1 violates due process (Art. 2, §7) | Lee: statute limits evidence, deprives insured plaintiffs of a property interest (difference between billed and paid) and treats people unequally | No vested property interest shown; statute uniformly regulates admissibility and does not deny procedural protections | Court: Due-process claims fail — no proven deprivation of a vested interest and classification challenged is not unreasonable |
| Whether § 3009.1 violates separation of powers (Art. 4, §1) | Lee: Legislature invaded judicial factfinding by prescribing evidence rules and outcomes | Legislature has authority to enact rules of evidence; statute does not predetermine adjudicative facts | Court: No separation-of-powers violation; Legislature may change rules of evidence |
| Whether § 3009.1 abrogates/limits the collateral source rule | Lee: statute abolishes the collateral source rule for insured plaintiffs by preventing recovery of billed-but-not-paid amounts | Legislature may modify common law; §3009.1 expressly limits admissible evidence to amounts paid/owed | Court: §3009.1 controls to the extent it conflicts with collateral-source rule; it does not abolish the rule entirely but precludes admission/recovery of billed-but-not-paid amounts under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Potter, 341 P.3d 660 (Okla. 2014) (statute limiting uninsured motorists' damages treated as unconstitutional special law)
- Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (affidavit-of-merit requirement for medical-malpractice plaintiffs held to create impermissible subclass)
- Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775 (Okla. 2013) (professional-affidavit requirement unconstitutional as creating an unequal subclass)
- Gowens v. Barstow, 364 P.3d 644 (Okla. 2015) (recognized §3009.1's controlling effect over collateral-source questions in some contexts)
- Denco Bus Lines v. Hargis, 229 P.2d 560 (Okla. 1951) (statement of collateral source rule: independent compensation does not reduce tortfeasor liability)
- Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 152 P.3d 165 (Okla. 2006) (legislative limits on damages/evidence can constrain jury discretion consistent with due process)
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 257 P.3d 1130 (Cal. 2011) (collateral-source rule does not protect billed-but-not-paid amounts)