Wall v. Marouk
2013 OK 36
| Okla. | 2013Background
- Patient filed medical negligence action against Dr. Marouk in 2010 without an affidavit of merit required by 12 O.S.2011 § 19.
- Trial court initially denied dismissal but later held § 19 valid; certiorari review was granted.
- This Court held that Title 12 O.S.2011 § 19 is a special law regulating the practice of law and violates art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Court also held § 19 imposes an impermissible financial burden on access to the courts in violation of art. 2, § 6.
- Definitions for 'professional negligence' and 'medical liability action' are drawn from the Affordable Access to Health Care Act, not § 19 itself.
- Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, and § 19 affidavit requirement was not to be applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19 is a special law | Wall argues § 19 creates a special class of tort victims. | Marouk argues no improper specialization; statute applies to professional negligence generally. | Unconstitutional as a special law |
| Whether § 19 unconstitutionally burdens access to courts | Wall contends affidavit costs deter access to courts. | Physician contends reasonable access maintained via indigency provisions. | Unconstitutional financial barrier to access |
| Whether § 19’s definitions and linkage to other acts render it constitutionally infirm | Professional negligence defined by other Act, causing definitional issues and vagueness. | Legislature defined terms consistently across statutes. | Vagueness and cross-linkage problems rendered § 19 unconstitutional |
| Whether Zeier v. Zimmer should control | Zeier invalidated earlier medical-affidavit requirements; § 19 should be invalid. | § 19 expands to all professionals; different context may justify. | Zeier controls; § 19 unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeier v. Zimmer, 2006 OK 98 (OK) (affidavit of merit for medical liability deemed unconstitutional special law)
- Barzellone v. Presley, 2005 OK 86 (OK) (jury fees; affordability of access to courts)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88 (OK) (classification of tort actions for statutes of limitations)
- Guthrie Daily Leader v. Cameron, 1895 OK 71 (OK) (special vs general laws; uniform operation)
- Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Lamb & Tyner, 1911 OK 68 (OK) (art. 5, § 46 prohibits local or special laws on named subjects)
- City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 2006 OK 16 (OK) (general laws must apply equally to similarly situated classes)