Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

2006 OK 29 CLINIC,

BROADWAY

Plaintiff/Appellant, MUTUAL INSURANCE

LIBERTY Defendant/Appellee.

COMPANY, 101,572.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

9,May 26, 2006.

Rehearing Denied June

Timоthy A. Heefner A. Brun- and Jennifer er, P.C., Goolsby, Proctor, Olson & Oklahoma City, plaintiff/appellant. Tait, McAlester,

Albert L. Jr. and J. Mark Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Moon, Reneau & City, defendant/appellee.1 Oklahoma par- appear Identified herein are those counsel for the ties whose names on the filed in briefs UM claim that it had settled Johnson’s OPALA, Clinic J. her. the funds to and had disbursed presented this dispositive issue statutory physician’s lien appeal is whether proceed- a small-claim 4 The Clinic filed patient’s unin- attaches Liberty seeking a decla- ing against Mutual in the coverage. We answer motorist sured UM that its lien attached to Johnson’s ration affirmative. At a hear- and to enforce the lien. benefits parties stipulated August the ing on 20

I opposing presented their to the facts McElwee, trial to Roma M. legal arguments LITIGATION ANATOMY OF THE 46(B) §a question of whether judge, on the (Jоhnson) ¶ injured Tijuana was Johnson against UM is enforceable physician’s lien September in accident in an automobile neg- indemnity. judge The trial ruled accident-relat- providing After Johnson judgment for defen- pronounced ative and treatment, Broadway Clinic the ed medical appeal, which brought Plaintiff this dant. (in (Clinic the office of the filed plaintiff) or disposition. for this court’s stands retained Clerk) County a O.S.2001 Oklahoma provisions the of now hold that 5 We against physician’s lien] lien2 [called 46(B), in authorize a lien for her might receive any payment Johnson upon proceeds payable of a favor an insur- tortfeasor or from injuries from the insurer, the by include within ambit an against her a claim asserted er.3 Johnson coverage. patient’s of a UM We insurer, Liberty Mutual Insur- automobile judgment trial court’s hence reverse the defendant) (Liberty or Company Mutual ance judge proceed, upon to re- the trial direct the medical under both to recover benefits mand, today’s consistent with in a manner the coverage and payments uninsured/under- pronouncement. (UM) poli- coverage of her motorist insured cy. II 2002, Liberty paid the April Mutual 3 In $1,000.00 medical under Johnson’s Clinic OF REVIEW STANDARD outstanding leaving an coverage, payments (cid:127) appeal facts relevant to this 6 The rendered for medical services balance month, undisputed, having been submitted Later that same of Johnson $902.00. The issue before by stipulation. trial court a check to Johnson Liberty Mutual issued we must determine $4,200.00, is one of law which represent- us amount of alone the lien is en statutory physician’s coverage. whether a ing proceeds from Johnson’s indemnity. Contested against UM forceable Liberty Mutual informed July In any against for plied or considered valid this court. provisions of Title pursuant to the amounts due Statutes. 85 of the Oklahoma provisions 42 O.S.2001 46 state 2. The of in sub- to the lien B. In addition for pertinent part: section, every physician who section A this Every physician performs medical who A. any injured person performs medical services for any person injured another, a result services for negligence or act as a result another, shall, negligence have, if the or act of injured person main- asserts or shall insurer, injured person a claim asserts or maintains a lien an tains a claim for damages person any on ac- upon other such services due such medical amount injuries, injured a lien for the such have payable count of the insurer to monies upon services person. due for such medical amount going belonging part or any recovery was person or sum had or collected the lien at issue dissent asserts that 3. The injured person, properly perfected and is therefore invalid collected or to be heirs, expressed representative, the reasons personal or next For his and unenforceable. infra, death, compli- plaintiff’s by judg- opine upon of his whether we decline kin in the event ment, settlement, perfec- statutory requirements for compromise. Such lien with the ance 46(B) today's pro- any and confine lien or claim of shall be inferior upon ground decision nouncement attorney handling or on behalf of the claim for judgment rests. court’s ap- which thе district injured person. not be The lien shall Finally, issues of law stand before us for de novo defendant contends that the examining a trial court’s review.4 When le- exemption from attachment and execution gal rulings, appellate ple- court exercises created of 31 O.S.2001 nary independent and au- non-deferential § 1.A.21 person’s for a interest “a claim thority.5 personal bodily injury” in an amount not $50,000.00 places to exceed Johnson’s UM

Ill benefits out of the reach of the Clinic’s lien. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS ¶ 11 Plaintiff contends the trial court urges 7 Defendant us to sustain trial 46(B) erred in construing to exclude the court’s construction of to exclude a 46(B), UM carrier. The terms of patient’s UM carrier. Defendant contends plaintiff urges, unambiguous are clear and 46(A) § that persons— creates a class of any language and dеvoid of suggesting that tortfeasors —which controls and limits the 46(B) legislature § intended to confine to 46(A) 46(B) persons § § to whom both the tortfeasor’s insurer. In the absence of conjunction 46(A), apply. § Read in with limiting any such language or other textual asserts, legisla- defendant it is clear that the legislature indication that intended to 46(B) § apply only ture intended to to the 46(B) way § restrict defendant advo- insurer, not pur- to insurance tortfeasor’s cates, plaintiff argues the statute must be patient. chased apply any construed as written' —to to insur- ¶8 argues Defendant also that Oklahoma er, including own UM carrier. jurisprudence involving types other of statu ¶ 12 Plaintiff argues further that defen- tory consistently liens has denied the lien- approach dant’s restrictive proceeds meaning holder access to the of UM сover 46(B) contention, age. support In of this legislature’s defendant inconsistent with the Kratz,6 cites this court’s decision Kratz v. enacting intent in purpose the statute. The which held that a 42 O.S.2001 43 encourage the lien is to physicians to indemnity, lien does not attach to UM ‍‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍as well provide medical treatment persons as appel two decisions of our intermediate regard without ability pay to their at the holding late that an employer’s courts time the services are rendered. Plaintiff ar- compensation workers carrier’s gues removing that UM as a source right subrogation does not extend to UM payment pur- would thwart the statute’s benefits.7 pose. argues 9 Defendant further that to con- ¶ 13 Plaintiff also asserts that defendant’s 46(B) strue the words “an insurer” in misplaced. reliance on Kratz is Plaintiff generally just inсlude insurers and not points statutory hospital out that liens are tortfeasor’s insurer would lead to the absurd governed by provisions result that insurance available to the while the lien it asserts falls under the game physi- would become fair for a 46(B). §of argues Plaintiff lien, including cian’s first-party such other critical differences between coverage. insurance as collision This would 46(B) §in impair preclude used applica- contract of insurance between the insured, reasoning insurer and its tion of contemplates Kratz to a lien that payment 46(B). only. benefits to the insured comes within the terms of 49, ¶ Russell, McKnight, 225, 231, Booth v. 70 499 U.S. 111 S.Ct. 4. (1991). 860. 113 L.Ed.2d 190 Auth., 6. Hosp. 905 P.2d 753. Kluver v. Weatherford ¶ 14, ("[i]ssues lawof are reviewable appel a de novo standard Wollery, and an v.Wise 1995 OK CIV APP denied; late plenary independent court claims for itself Harding cert. Dennis v. Glаss authority and non-deferential to reexamine a tri 1996 OK CIV APP cert. de legal al rulings”); Regina College court's Salve nied. squarely within the stat- UM benefits —falls IV ute’s intended domain. The en- encourage physicians pro- OF UM COVERAGE acted 46 to THE PROCEEDS §A ARE TO treatment to accident victims SUBJECT vide medical LIEN pay PHYSICIAN’S insufficient funds or insurance to delivery.14 for their treatment at the time of A lien such physicians designed It is to ensure that stands 46 to accorded patients are paid for services once their law.8 As a reme derogation of the common injuries.15 compensated for their legis to a that owes its existence dial device enactment, physician’s text of the lative purpose 16 The right measure of lien statute is the both insurance is to policy of automobile statutory remedy A it creates.9 protect per: from the effects of the insured strictly within the ambit confined must be injury resulting from an accident with sonal Hence, the funds legislation giving it birth.10 another motorist who carries no insurance im upon which a is underinsured.16 It carrier’s direct only those that come within pressed are pay indemnity for a promise to the insured to it the statute. Once be express terms of specified person of the effects of loss.17 One right clearly that the lien comes established pa injury al an accident is the loss a from attaches, provi enforcement the statute’s obligation a of the tient suffer as result construct accorded a liberal sions are be expenses. pay accident-related medical ion.11 coverage supposed is not to be a windfall UM injured party. place it off-limits to to the To ¶ аmbiguity or 15 In the absence of 46(B) coverage § lien would treat UM as enactment, our task is with another conflict something receipt than insured’s of other according to the applying a statute limited indemnity leg for loss. It would thwart the chosen plain meaning of the words intent to make insurance that com islature’s express that legislature, presumptively which injury available to 46(B) pensates the §of body’s intent.12 The compensate for services ren in conflict with ambiguous nor are neither wanted to con dered. Had agree with enactment. While we another 46(B) insurer, 46(B)’s § it fine to the tortfeasor’s express terms do defendant that easily have included the limitation could of the clearly define the outer boundaries the text of the statute. It did not. Where plain right,13 the enactment’s statute, from a we рhrase word or is absent that the insurance language leaves no doubt is intention- patient’s presume must that its absence coverage at issue in this ease—the Minerals, we that contends that if hold Republic 13. Defendant 8. Bank & Trust Co. v. Bohmar benefits, 29, ¶5, 521, 523; Inc., 46(B) applies there will be OK 1983 Riffe Inc., Corp., type v. 1980 OK that comes within Petroleum Co. Great Nat. limit to the 112, 5, 614 ¶ coverages including 579. operation, P.2d hav- the statute’s personal ing nothing to do with the Petroleum, supra note 8. 9. Riffe injuries. Today's pronouncement authorizes 46(B) coverage. application to UM It does 10. Id. 46(B) beyond §of the facts not address the reach presented us. in the case before 11. Id. legislative Only intent cannot be 12. where the Nelson, 149, 11, ¶ 14. v. Balfour enactment’s from the of the ascertained P.2d 919. ambiguity or conflict text—as in instances of rulеs with other enactments —are Id. 15. George Failing E. Co. construction to be utilized. 56; 76, 7, Watkins, P.3d Cox 41, ¶ Uptegraft Ins. v. Home Dawson, 683-84. law, (noting we hesitate to "[u]nder that our case appears un- that clear and construe 7,¶ ambiguous”). 17. Id. at Ejusdem generis in equally al.18 applicable. We have held that the doctrine 46(A) argument 17 Defendant’s (1) ejusdem generis applies when a statute 46(B) application of to the restricts the (2) enumeration; specific contains a support has no textual tortfeasor’s insurer class; suggest members of the enumeration plain language the enactment. (3) the class is not exhausted the enumer 46(B), words, begins “In (4) ation; general supplementing reference 46(A)]” made, [§ addition to the usually following the enumeration is (5) enumeration; unqualified phrase clearly to use the there is not gеneral manifested intent that the term “claim an insurer” indicates that the given meaning be a broader than the doc independently. provisions operate two requires.20 words, trine In other the statute display syntactical relationship must of the ambiguity 18 The dissenter finds specific general, specif with a series employ §in and would the canons of (or defining ic words class followed some statutory construction known as noscitur a preceded) by times a catchall referent ejusdem generis sociis and to restrict its extensively determines “how ... the act [is] reach to insurer. the tortfeasor’s Neither reasonably intended or should be understood applicable. doctrine is Noscitur a sociis apply.”21 meaning asserts that of an unclear or ¶ 20 The dissenter would have us treat the ambiguous phrаse word or “should de 46(A) referring words in to the tortfeasor immediately the words termined sur 46(B)’s creating a class into which words rounding it.”19 Even there were some Applying ejusdem generis, “an insurer” fall. ambiguity in degree meaning the dissenter would then define the words insurer,” deny, words “an which we nosci- “an insurer” reference to the “class of provide way tur a sociis does not to re resulting tortfeasor” in the words “an insur- 46(A) question. § solve the While and becoming er” “the tortfeasor’s insurer.” We 46(B) § neighbors, respective lan attempt square peg liken this to an to fit a guage, apart independent set subsec a into round hole. The statute at issue does tions, any meaning does not derive from not through ejus- lend itself to construction that association. The of the for generis dem because it lacks most if all mer does not form the сontext of the latter. necessary the applica- characteristics for the simply There is no indication in the statuto § tion of the doctrine. There is 46 no ry language of either subsection that the specific things, enumeration or list of no class words used to create one lien are enumeration, intended by created such an and no gen- limiting to have a on effect the other. eral catchall simply reference. There is Comm'n, Wint, 154, ¶ Corp. Corp. 18. TXO Production Okla. 20. White v. (recognizing 1113-14. legislature presumption the "that the has ex pressed a its intent in statute and that it intended (6th ed.) Statutory Construction 21. 2A Sutherland, expressed”). what it so § Brown, supra 47:18. See also Brown and note (“Ejusdem generis meaning 19 at 74 'of the same (8th ed.2004); Dictionary 19. Black's Law class,' listing is a canon invoked when a of items TRW, M14, Rifle, U.S. v. One Model 7.62 Caliber (i.e., 'limes, ’) grapefruits, oranges ... is ended or (6th Cir.2006). 441 F.3d See also Ron- completed ('... by general the use of a term and Sharon Statu- Brown, ald Benton Brown and Jacobs others'). provides general This canon tory Interpretation: that the Search Legislative (2002) ('... ("Noscitur others') term at the a sociis means that a end and is to be limited Intent by ('limes, specific preceding word is known its associates or what to the class of items it (or by company keeps).... surrounds it the it grapefruits, oranges'). might explained It example, "complaint” appeared For if the word by reasoning working that the drafter down the concerning litigation, ain civil it was keep writing list would this in mind when probably meaning intended to have the to which general term at the end. It can be deduced that lawyers litigation involved in civil could rеlate ending probably term was intended to be (i.e., commencing legal a formal document legisla- limited to the terms in the list action), expression rather than as an of discon- ture.”). non-lawyers.”). tent —what it to means most money against proceeds recovered the doc- lien upon which nothing in the statute generis injured person against an ejusdem operate.22 can an from insurer trine injured party has asserted or whom evaluating In whether a claim. maintained 46(A) meaning § to restrict intended for 46(B), important to recall that it is remaining contention is 23 Defendant’s “assert or maintain a injured party cannot exemption from attachment and exe- that liability insur- against” the tortfeasor’s 31 O.S.2001 1.A.21 for cution the nos- application dissenter’s er.23 The $50,000.00 personal injury up recoveries generis ejusdem maxims citur a sociis negates Clinic’s to the tortfeasor’s insurer to restrict recovery. disagree. We It of Johnson’s UM legisla- result of the would have the absurd unprecedented for us to hold that a having a lien that can never ture enacted against exempt property. lien is enforceable actually exist. statutory exemption held that a We have urges us to extend to this 22 Defendant apply does not from attachment execution (that Kratz holding in case our mortgages liens such as to certain consensual benefits). hospital lien does not attach UM security interests.26 We have en- also dissimilar, the relevant statutes are Because lien created under the forced laborer’s Hospital gov- to do liens are we decline so. provisions of 42 by the terms of 42 O.S.2001 erned prоperty.27 homestead hospital expressly scope limit the which dealing with a 24 Because we are here a “claim proceeds that result from lien to relationship statutory lien’s to a damages.”24 Because against another how the exemption, our task is to ascertain a claim not result from UM benefits do for the two statutes to legislature intended damages, we held against another together. pre- start with the operate We they Kratz do not fall within the ambit sumption legislature would not enact that the While that rea- lien statute. functioning legislation incapable arising to a soning be relevant usefully. hence decline to construe We 46(A), which is under advocates be- exemption statute as defendant virtually it has no relevance identical effectively renders сause that construction 46(B) lien, grants right a lien to a Instead, nullity. we con- the lien statute physician against proceeds derived from give exemption lien and statutes strue the against an insurer.”25 patient’s “claim With the 31 therefore hold that effect both. We respect to the dissenter’s contention all due exemption identical,” 1.A.21 notwithstand- O.S.2001 “virtually 43 and 46 are ing, physician’s lien is enforceable following insignificant differ- we note the injury proceeds of less than against personal any language, let § 43 does not contain ence: subsection, $50,000.00; statutory exemption remains the separate that authorizes a alone a expenses and made an award for medical supra note 21 at 47.20 tion 22. 2A Sutherland ("Where ation, appears general employer with no enumer- term before the worker settled the terms, specific general with other or third-party. Under these circum- with the class, suggesting ejusdem rule of terms not stances, Compensation provides Act the Workers generis apply.”). does not Compensa- remedy in the Workers' the exclusive hospital services Court to recover for tion Hamilton, 137, 18, ¶ Daigle v. 1989 OK 782 23. ¶ 16, injured Id. at at rendered to the worker. 1379, 1383. P.2d 287. 42 43 contain 24. The O.S.2001 express respect to limitation with accidents Physicians, an 2005 OK CIV 25. See Richard v. OU Compensation by Act. In 618, 620, covered the Workers 108, ¶ 6, 127 P.3d cert. denied. APP Orthopedic v. Okla. & Arthritis Founda- Thomas 279, Inc., 47, the court 1995 OK 903 P.2d 354, ¶4, 85, Cross, 247 P. 26. Keist v. 1926 OK not entitled to a 43 lien held that is 86. injured of an worker's settle- on the third-parly tortfeasor ment of a suit 18, ¶ Marlar, 270, 366 1961 OK 27. Conrad 1) the filed a claim in the where: worker has P.2d 465. 2) Compensation the Work- Workers' Court and jurisdic- Compensation assumed ers Court has court, by subject lack attachment or execution all dismissal for as a bar jurisdiction.35 judges other creditors.28 matter All of the dis- constitutionally trict court have a invested ¶25 The dissent would have us power to transfer cases to another division of that the divi sponte sua assert small claims any legal the district court on tenable jurisdiction subject matter over sion lacks equitable ground point litiga- shown at a lien would proceeding to enforce this tion. judgment trial court’s have us declare appellate duty- court nullity. While ¶26 The dissent also contends sua sponte. into its own inquire bound lien at issue here is any pending jurisdiction over matter as well invalid and hence unenforceable because it court whence the as that of the lower case 46(C)(1) perfected required by § was not certiorari,29 by appeal or on the en came (2). Compliance with the re presents in small claims forcement of a lien quirements perfection issue allocation of caseload rath matter of internal was not trial raised court and was not jurisdiction. er than one of Under for the basis trial court’s decision. It is constitution,30 State’s the district court —in not the function of court to this make first- an omni-eom- all of its divisions—constitutes legal ques instance determinations of fact or petent, single-level, first-instance tribunal31 tions which have been neither nor raised original over all with “unlimited prius.36 assessed at nisi The matter of the justiciable matters....”32 While the business perfection today. lien’s is not us Un before separate divided into of the district court is dissent, highly like the we consider it im сompartments,33 its constitutional dockets proper express any opinion question on a ly-conferred jurisdictional sweep is indivisib which not before us for consideration. challenging le.34 The correct method pertinent 27 The appeal facts to this power of the small claims division to dispute. not in enforce a lien is motion to transfer the The Clinic medical proper division of the district treatment cause to Johnson after she was Innis, Accord, 121, 2, J., (Bkrtcy. (Opala, B.R. In re 1980 OK N.D.Okla.1995). concurring). Co., Inc., Const., 29. Stites v. DUIT Const. 7(a), 32. Art. 7 Okl. note 30. supra 293, 297, 10; V P.2d n. n. Lincoln Comm’n, v. Okla. Tax Bank and Trust Co. 33. The division district court’s business 22, 6, 1314, 1318; Cate v. Archon separate provi- into dockets is authorized Co., Inc., 15, 10, Oil n. 91.2, of 20 sions which stand vital- Hill, 12; n. Pointer v. ized this court’s administrative directives (SCAD (16 1999), No. 99-87 December 92-06 (24 1992), (12 1989), September December 89-7 7(a), pertinent §7 30. The tеrms of Art. Okla. (31 1989), (23 January 89-1 68-1 December Const., are: 1968)). " * * * have unlimited The District Court shall matters, jurisdiction original justiciable of all 116, Hester, supra note 31 at at 246 34. Lee v. Article, except as otherwise in this (stating sweep that "[t]he current of district added) (emphasis ...” power longer hinge court’s can be said to on Since 1969 district courts exercise unlimited presence specifically legisla- of some tailored matters, original jurisdiction justiciable of all ex grant”). tive cept provided by as otherwise the Constitution. 7, Okla. Const. (eff. 1969); §7Art. 13 Jan. State Ladd, 22, ¶ Eskridge supra 35. v. note at at 31 Brown, ex rel. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. 1974 C.J., (Opala, concurring). ‍‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍591-92 19, 21, 491, ¶ OK 519 P.2d 495. Associates, 53, Ladd, 7, 3, ¶ 25, 36. Eskridge 31. Evers v. FSF Overlake 2003 OK v. 1991 OK n. 811 18, 581, 587; ¶ 587, 592-3, C.J., City concurring); 77 P.3d v. (Opala, P.2d n. 7 Okla. Salazar 20, 15, 1056, ¶ B.C., 3, 542, 1062; ¶ City, 1999 OK 976 P.2d Matter of 1988 OK 749 P.2d J., (Opala, concurring part dissenting Hosp., v. 548 in and Bivins State ex rel. Okla. Memorial 1996 5, ¶ 19, Hester, 30, 6, 456, 464; ¶ part); Dyke in OK Lee v. 1982 OK 642 P.2d 917 P.2d v. St. 243, 246; Inc., 114, 11, ¶ Stephens, Hosp., Corp. v. Interstate Brands Francis 861 P.2d

881 ¶ KAUGER, J., in part concurs and 31 Johnson asserted accident. in an automobile carrier, part. dissents Liberty Mu- against her UM a claim tual, the accident. The connection ¶ WATT, C.J., and 32 and EDMONDSON against a 46 filed Clinic COLBERT, JJ., dissent. by “an payable to Johnson any proceeds today EDMONDSON, J., that Dissenting joined we hold and Because insurer.” COLBERT, WATT, physi- subject by to a C.J. and J. indemnity stands lien, judg- court’s reverse the trial cian’s we majority’s disagree 1 I with the conclu- UM benefits be- placed that Johnson’s ment statutory physician’s that our lien is sion lien and remand of the Clinic’s yond reach against UM and would enforceable proceed in a directions to the cause with reason, solely for that but this case dissent today’s pronounce- consistent with manner and fundamental flaws which has more basiс ment.37 the small claims also must be addressed: jurisdiction subject matter

court did not have this action to enforce to hear and determine Y lien, purported per- lien was not and the according statute. fected SUMMARY jurisdic question subject matter The 46(B) clearly and The every primary and fundamental tion is place unambiguously authorize duty of this Court case and it is the on to which inquire jurisdiction and that of into its own question an insurer. We entitled from a whether or not such the trial court “seeking meaning at parties. hidden Collins v. Mid- have noted is raised 56, 6 Pipeline P.3d [in statute] variance with the used Continent Dickson, 1050, 1051, 2; v. quite fn. Dickson perilous undertaking which is is a 2; Hayhurst fn. 637 P.2d OK apt to lead to an amendment of law Hayhurst, 1966 OK to arrive at the judicial construction as it is Subject cannot be con matter legislative thought mind.”38 actual partiеs, ferred consent or waiver of statutory language plain and the Where time. and it be raised evident, will not inter- legislative purpose we Shaffer 910, 913. Ju Jeffery, 1996 OK ject phrase a word or into the statute authority by which courts is the risdiction made. choice the has alters the judicial cognizance take of and and officers the case here where the Such is Coryell, 1966 OK cases. Turk v. decide against proceeds authorizes a lien plainly power judicial 558. It is the from a claim insurer. derived courts to hear and determine officers and deciding otherwise. trial court erred judi controversy to exercise subject in ¶ 29 THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT every aspect the cause and power over cial THE RE- AND CAUSE IS IS REVERSED particular judgment power to render the PRO- MANDED DIRECTIONS TO WITH Semke, Lowry v. entered. A MANNER IN CONSISTENT Estate., CEED 861; In re Harkness’ WITH TODAY’S PRONOUNCEMENT. 329, 204 P. claims division of the district 3 The small Y.C.J., WINCHESTER, Claims Proce- court is created Small 1751-1753,

LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA, Act, §§ Supp.2003, dure O.S. jurisdictional power. Maxi- TAYLOR, JJ., limits its which concur. against 295, 300; physician's Gwaltney, of a OK enforcement Davis v. 1955 820, coverage, expressly it is over- of UM 291 P.2d ruled. Appeals’ Court of Civil deci- 37. To the extent the Peoria, 48, City v. Tul- Mooney, Hundred Inc. Fugate OK CIV APP 38. Seventeen in v. 1998 sion 14, 840, sa, 843-44. 422 P.2d preclude could be construed to 882 in amounts were increased to term is defined Section 6552 of

mum values and 1, 2004; Statutes, $6,000.00 November Title 36 of the Oklahoma who is effective aside, provided assignee as follows at the under an the Act benefits available trust, policy, to this case: pertinent times and health insurance accident plan, or contract. may brought following suits be A.The procedure: claims the small under In those cases which are uncontest- C. recоvery money ed, 1. Actions for the attorneys the amount of fees allowed tort, including (10%) contract or sub- based on percent exceed ten shall not claims, excluding but or rogation libel judgment. slander, sought amount in which the may brought D. No action be under recovered, attorneys exclusive of fees be procedure any alleged the small claims costs, does not exceed and other court any city, county, or state Hundred Four Thousand Five Dollars agency, city county employee or of a or ($4,500.00); agency, alleges state the claim matters replevy personal prop- 2. Actions to incarceration, arising probation, pa- from erty of which does not exceed the value community supervision. or role Five Hundred Four Thousand Dollars by plaintiff E. No action cur- who is ($4,500.00). possession If claims for rently any jail person in in incarcerated or personal property and to recover may brought against any per- the state be alternative, money pled entity proce- son or under the small claims joinder permissible if of claims is neither dure. property the value of the nor the total ¶ Broadway brought 4 Clinic this suit to money sought amount of to be recov- statutory physician’s enforce its claimed lien.1 ered, attorneys fees and oth- exclusive contract, tort, It is not an action based on costs, exceed Four er does Thousand benefits, replevin assignment or and it is ($4,500.00); Five Hundred Dollars by § not therefore authorized 1751 as a mat- 3. Actions the nature of inter- may ter be heard and decided small pleader, provided as Section 2022 brought court.2 A claims case that is title, of this in which the value of the court which has settle the money subject which is the of such ac- controversy judice” said be “coram non tion does not exceed Four Thousand legally and such a decision is invalid. Collins ($4,500.00); Dollars Five Hundred Co., Pipeline v. Mid-Continent P.3d may brought be under the B.No action here, being fn. 8. That the situation I procedure by any small claims collection purported judg- would hold the trial court’s agency, agent, assignee collection nullity. ment a claim, may except that an action third-party brought majority an insurer or 5 Since the of this Court does provider agree administrator a health care that this action to enforce a lien statute, O.S.2001, physician's types The claims court limited statute as to provides: "D. The liens for in this sec- cap damages); Thayer Phillips cases and on v. be enforced civil action in the dis- Co., (cap Petroleum 613 P.2d 1041 county trict court of the where the lien was filed. limit); Gullett, jurisdictional on claim is Carter v. (1) brought Such an action shall be within one 640(jurisdiction in small year physician becomes aware of final after the dependent claims on amount of claim and coun- judgment, compromise of the claim settlement terclaim); Family Seminole Medicine Clinic v. by or on behalf of the asserted or maintained Southern, 2005 OK CIV APP injured person. practice, pleading, pro- (collection agency proper party in small ceedings in the action shall conform to the rules action); Equipment claims Fowler Co. Houston prescribed by Pleading Code [12 the Oklahoma Oil Inc. 1997 OK CIV APP 945 P.2d 513 seq.] applica- §§ et to the extent (smаll power claims court is without to ‍‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍exceed ble.” cap damages); Seffel, Phillips on recoverable (jurisdiction 1998 OK CIV APP 954 P.2d 1257 subject juris- recognizing 2. For decisions matter dependent of small claims on kind of case and diction limitations of the small claims court restrictions, sought) amount docket based on see Patter- Beall, 839(small son v. the statute was enacted. purpose limi- for which subject matter the exceeded Hatchel, court, Tubescope Company AMF v. I must See the small claims tations of 374, 14, and 1976 OK 547 P.2d 379-80. additionally from its construction dissent § 46. of 42 OS 2001 application Appellee correctly argues that the doc- 1Í9 ejusdem interpretation, of Contrary majority’s position, trine applies precludes the ma- ambiguous regard- generis, here and and is uncertain jority’s finding that the be as “an mеant to be included ing who result, majority against uninsured motorist benefits the enforced To reach its insurer.” paid not a to the insured his own insur- in the abstract. It is phrase reads the rule, general words qualifica- er. Under that where stands alone without phrase which words, general part particular the words do meaning, however. It is a of follow tions on its particular pre- statute, explain amplify or words and a statute must be the entire them, general ceding but are themselves restricted light of its construed as a whole words, explained by particular the terms. Okla- objective. phrases The and purpose and Fortinberry Tax are to be under- homa Commission and sentences of 75, 301, n used, 207 P.2d 305. Nuckolls they not in an abstract 1949 OK stood Tulsa, City sense, Adjustment part used in one Board and words which are of of of 556, 558-559.' Where intеrpreted light of 1977 OK of a statute must be general particular words follow words the in that sense context and understood their applica parts general words will be considered as with the other which best harmonizes general char only things of the same Matter Estate Little ble of the statute. enumerated, acter, kind, Bear, and nature or class 1995 OK wholly things Nuc statute does cannot include different majority’s recognition that the City Adjustment the lien kolls v. Board the outer boundaries of not define Tulsa, Wint, supra; ambiguity. White only highlights the statute’s appli Thus, 1114. This maxim is an property lien into the the reach maxim, of the broader noscitur soci- injured patients is to determined cation rights of be is, specific general means that judiciary legislature. by the instead with and take color words are associated ¶7 operate A and B do not Subsections other, restricting general words to from each A other. independently of each Subsection analogous general. Application sense to less for medical services creates a Airlines, Inc., Central applicability specific funds and limits its we 923-924. In Central Airlines way by specific popu- specific in a obtained based on the obvi observed that the rule is injured pa- an patients: lation of the sums that “if lawmakers had intended ous reason “per- his claim tient recovers from unre general words to be used son,” party at or other third the tortfeasor they made no men sense would have stricted injury. Subsection B’s creation fault for his particular classes.” Id. at 924. tion of the to the hen” in subsec- of a hen addition “[i]n of statu- A, Application of these dоctrines particular terms of is limited requires finding that the tory construction A to mean the sums that subsection B is meaning of “an insurer” subsection injured from the insurer of patient recovers the insurer of the tortfeasor party at fault restricted to tortfeasor or other third injury, caused the party who injury. for his is not intended party’s own insurer cardinal rule of 8 It is axiomatic that the clearly manifested included. There is and, if statutory interpretation is to ascertain language should be legislative intent that the Legislature’s possible, give effect to the meaning. given a broader expressed in purpose as it is intention Kratz, 11 In Kratz v. provisions. When the the statute’s O.S.1999, we found plain unambiguous, it is P.2d of a statute is not lien, ambiguous and statutory hospital was job meaning of court’s to determine the apply to unin- it did not we determined that wаy produces in a a reason- the statute paid general motorist benefits promote which will sured result able lawyers recognized contingent that uninsured fact that for fee is the We own insurer. coverage, “first-party” ‘customary arrangement negligence motorist insurance ” collision, comprehensive pay Kratz, or medical like eases.’ 905 P.2d at 756-757. ments, “third-party” coverage, public like consistency of the stat- 13 Given two insurance, liability as it is a carrier’s direct liens, utory very unlikely it seems that the pay insured for the promise to its insured hospital apply intended liens to loss, promise pay to insured to rather than a only third-party coverage but intended coverage is a benefit of party. a third UM apply first-party liens to cover- arrangement private contractual insured’s age third-party coverage. as well as on the terms of with his or her carrier based policy. Uptegraft v. Home Ins. Co. 1983 Kratz, recognized 14 In we that there is motorist 662 P.2d 681. Uninsured hospital no basis for a lien in the absence of It is insurance is not a “windfall.” intended statute, hospital and that while the loss, compensate for his while an insured worthy public purpose, serves we are not pro him public liability furnishes free to in the read inclusion of funds which creditors, compensation for tection from fairly are not embraced the terms of the Co., Uptegraft his loss. v. Home Ins. See statute: P.2d at 684. strictly This Court must construe stat physi- 12 While it is true that creating property utes liens. Liens are today, us not an cian’s lien statute before rights and it is not the function of the statute, copy hospital exact courts to create them from a sense virtually identical in all two are relevant justice particular Young case. v. J.A. respects. majority’s view that 46 is so Young Supply Mach. & 203 Okla. require dissimilar as ‍‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍to a different result (1950). 224 P.2d 971 can Liens be created holding unconvincing. from the in Kratz is either contract or law. 42 O.S.1991 payment Both to assure for are intended 6. A lien such as the injured pa- medical treatment derogation lien at issue stands in of the might non-paying. who otherwise be tients strictly common law and must be con clearly money Both create a lien on the provided by A strued. lien that is not injured patient person from the recovers who language clear of the statute cannot be injury money caused the recovered from fiat, by judicial created for the words of insurer. Both are unclear tortfeasor’s right the statute are the measure of the application injured about the lien’s remedy. and the A court cannot create notice, patient’s perfec- own insurance. The lien out of a sense fairness if the terms procedures tion and enforcement for both of the statute found too narrow and quite Significantly, liens are similar. both have not been met. Petroleum v.C. Riffe provide superiority liens also of the Inc., (Okl. Corp., Nat. Great 614 P.2d 576 46(C) patient’s attorney’s lien. See 1980); Parks, Harriss v. 77 Okl. § 43. noted in Kratz that this We estab- (1920); P. 470 Interurban Construction superiority Legisla- lished results from the Kiefer, Co. v. State Bank Central 76 Okl. recognition attorney’s ture’s that without the (1919). Kratz, 184 P. 905 representation person insurer, the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s ¶ Appellee correctly contends that money impress there would be no a liеn physician’s lien can be enforced upon. Considering this factor in our con- benefits, first-party coverages all struction of the statute to exclude UM cover- reach, Kratz, will now be included within age its includ- we stated: “The court noted in Center[, ing those which are unrelated to the Vinzant Hillcrest Med. (Okl.1980) injuries pur- and were not intended for that superiority ... ] was my legislative recognition pose. opinion, In “an that it is the skill and insurer” lawyer personal injury effort of the in a of a statute means the insurer of case being recovery party results in there the tortfeasor or other at fault. The fiat, hospital, majority, by judicial physi- and rests on the creates a and, they comply with Oklahoma’s failed to cause first-party lien on dan’s perfection. for Ad- statutory requirements afford- so, protection removes doing also arguments that the de- dressing creditors’ coverage provid- first-party other ed UM and be overlooked be- in their liens should exemption from at- fects Legislature’s ed sale, the lien is to assure purpose cause the tachment, or other forced execution Court, providers, payment to medical personal in a claim for “person’s interest Kratz, judiciary explained that the relying on compensa- injury, or worker’s bodily death statutory repeal require- power claim, in excess of has amount not for net met in order to Dollars($50,000.00), which have not been not ments but Fifty Thousand parties. for the specific result punitive reach some exemplary for including 1(21). O.S.2001,§ damages.” 31 CONCLUSION point, I final and additional sub 16 As a is inval lien at issue here physician’s

mit the (l)small claims courts do 18 Because required perfected it was id because physician’s lien enforce- have an itemized not contain by statute. It does (2) actions, physicians do not have ment claimed, only amount but of the statement statutory patients’ UM cov- lien Title 42 amount claimed. asserts the total (3) Broadway purported erage, and Clinic’s (C)(1) (2), O.S., forth the and set Section requirements comply failed to lien physician’s perfection of requirements for necessary perfection and was therefore lien, writing and provide it must be unenforceable, respectfully I dissent. contain:(1) of the an itemized statement (2) claimed; of the an identification amount lien is policy against which the

insurance (3)

asserted; of the the name and address (4) address of the the name and

physician; (5) name of the

injured person; and firm, corporation against whom

person, filed The notice must be сlaim is made. ‍‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍TRUCKS, and materialman’s the mechanic’s on & BRONSON TRAILERS office county Company, docket Insurance Credit General must be sent copy Petitioners/Counter-Respondents, the lien as filed and a mail to the by registered or certified known, attorney, and the party and his Sr., NEWMAN, D. Richard allegedly liable. corporation firm or person, Respondent/Counter- requirements Similar Petitioner by 42 hospital O.S. creation of a 46(C)(1). discussed, previously our decisions 17 As Compensation The Workers’ have strictly liens and construe Court, Respondent. consistently that in order for held 101,458. enforceable, No. the exact valid and lien to be creating it must terms of the statute of Oklahoma. Supreme Court ignore the cannot complied with. Courts creating a by a prescribed terms 27, 2006. June Nelson, 149, 890 lien. Balfour statu- principle 919. This of strict Malloy v. adopted in St tory construction was Center, B.R. 519

John Medical

(N.D.Okla.1999), holding where credi- did not liens

tors’ amounts statements of the

contain itemized

claimed, be- the liens were unenforceable

Case Details

Case Name: Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: May 9, 2006

Citation: 139 P.3d 873

Docket Number: 101,572

Court Abbreviation: Okla.