MCCAMEY v. MEDICAL CENTERS OF OKLAHOMA, LLC, 2016 OK CIV APP 5

Background

Thomas McCamey filed a medical negligence action arising from a 1996 surgery; the case spawned multiple filings and appeals between 2000 and 2011 and the Tulsa Regional Medical Center remained the sole defendant.
The case endured repeated dismissals and refilings (including a dismissal tied to an affidavit requirement later declared unconstitutional in Zeier), summary judgment rulings, and a long appellate stay that prevented district-court proceedings for years.
McCamey died August 29, 2011; his daughter Jaime was substituted as personal representative on January 28, 2013 (the opinion sometimes cites 2018/2013 dates due to transcription errors in the opinion text).
The Medical Center moved in November 2012 to dismiss for failure to prosecute under District Court Rule 9(b); no timely response was filed; after Jaime’s substitution the district court ordered her to respond and ultimately dismissed the case for failure to prosecute (order entered January 8, 2014) and Jaime appealed.
The appellate court reviewed dismissal under the district court’s inherent authority (Rule 9 had been stricken in Cornett) and considered: delays attributable to appeals and defendant litigation strategy, the suspension of district-court proceedings during McCamey’s death/substitution period, and whether the delay prejudiced the Medical Center.
The Court concluded the Medical Center failed to show sufficient prejudice from the delay and that Jaime had not abandoned prosecution after substitution; the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper	Jaime: she was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to litigate after substitution; many delays were not her responsibility	Medical Center: long pendency, missed pretrial deadlines, and cancelled depositions justify dismissal	Reversed — dismissal inappropriate; many delays not imputable to Jaime and defendant failed to show inequitable prejudice
Effect of striking District Court Rule 9 on dismissal authority	Jaime: Rule 9 no longer controls; dismissal must be evaluated under court’s inherent power	Medical Center: relied on Rule 9(b) to seek dismissal	Court: Rule 9 was stricken (Cornett); but inherent common-law authority permits dismissal and Boston’s standards govern review
Prejudice from delay and loss of evidence/witnesses	Jaime: defendant has access to records and did not show inability to preserve testimony; much delay resulted from appeals and defendant strategy	Medical Center: lost witnesses/employees and lost opportunity to depose decedent; unfair to proceed	Held: defendant did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice or inability to defend; delay largely caused by appeals and defendant’s own litigation choices
Effect of plaintiff’s death and substitution on deadlines	Jaime: after decedent’s death district court lacked authority until substitution; scheduling orders and deadlines during suspension are ineffective	Medical Center: relied on pre-substitution scheduling to show failure to prosecute	Held: court’s authority was suspended by death; deadlines before substitution could not be enforced against Jaime

Key Cases Cited

Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (invalidated statutory affidavit requirement that had prompted dismissal)
Boston v. Buchanan, 89 P.3d 1034 (Okla. 2003) (discusses dismissal for failure to prosecute and the court’s inherent docket-control power)
Cornett v. Carr, 302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013) (struck District Court Rule 9; addressed conflict with statutory service time limits)
Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (while an appeal is pending, the district court lacks authority to affect rights materially)
Campbell v. Campbell, 878 P.2d 1037 (Okla. 1994) (death of a party suspends district-court proceedings until substitution)
Baker v. Deichman, 94 P.2d 246 (Okla. 1939) (dismissal for want of prosecution is discretionary; long dormancy may justify dismissal)