*1 another, supposed has never and it been illegal an a classification create JOHNSON, Repre- Coise Y. as Personal discrimination ...” sentative Isaac G. Deceased, Petitioner,
It is well settled that where taxation concerned, specific right, no federal v. involved, apart protection is equal DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA making great leeway classifi states COUNTY, Oklahoma, State of drawing in their cations and lines which Respondent. systems judgment produce reasonable Also, a scheme taxation. state taxation No. 68588. although arbitrary not be will held Supreme Court of Oklahoma. class, if that against discriminates a certain is founded reason discrimination 2, June 1987. policy in state able distinction or difference conflict with Federal The Fourteenth Amendment Constitution. impose equali
does not iron-clad rule
ty prohibits flexibility variety appropriate to schemes of taxa e.g., Kentucky,
tion. See Madden v. 406, (1940);
U.S. 60 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. Lake
Lehnhausen v. Shore Auto Parts
Co., 410 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 35 L.Ed.2d (1973); Ohio, Allied Stores Inc. v.
Bowers, 437, 3 358 U.S. 79 S.Ct. (1959). In regard,
L.Ed.2d 480 see also Telephone
McLoud v. State Board of Okl., (1982).
Equalization, P.2d
Appellants have asked to hold entitled interest on
Court them paid protest, excess taxes Employment
rule State ex rel. Okla. Sanders, Okl.,
Security v. Commission (1956) applies. P.2d Appellants overpaid
not entitled to interest on tax prior
monies of a rendition final
judgment. judgments
We affirm the trial court’s they distinguish
insofar as between but, we reverse judgment regarding personal court’s
property. The actions are remanded proceed in incon-
directions to a manner not expressed
sistent with the views
opinion.
All the Justices concur. *2 19(B).1 This motion discovery by to conduct ex petitioner’s physi- The trial court
cians. entered an order finding privilege the required discovery by ex communication. Pe- the physi- concedes waiver of titioner the evidentiary cian/patient auspices argues of section but provision that section nor other discovery by authorizes by respondent as ordered cation district assumption orig- court. Petitioner seeks by prohi- inal and relief writ of alleged from the excess of the bition dis- discretionary court’s exercise of trict au- thority.
Assumption original jurisdiction by prohibition appropri relief writ of is ate to the excessive exercise of ordering pre discretion a trial court in discovery.2 Travis, City, peti- K. Rex position urged by tioner. discovery by petitioner that the order for Short, Barnes, Margo Wiggins, & Adler beyond the communication was Sewell, Margo and Randall L. by Robert E. powers of trial court. Ti discretionary respondent parties real City, provides: tle in interest. through shall this act Sections known and be cited as Okla- LAVENDER, Justice: Discovery homa Code. Petitioner, brought Y. Coise for dis- against respon- action civil all suits nature interest, dents, parties Michael Seik- state, (emphasis add- courts in this all M.D., el, alleg- Sanger, M. M.D. Fenton ed) ing malpractice defend- that the these 3202, provides: Section petitioner’s ants had caused the death of liberally Discovery Code shall be physicians presented son. The defendant just, speedy constructed request- motion to district inexpensive every determination and action, finding added) (emphasis privilege concerning any communication 3203(A); provides: Section provider made to health care METHODS. Parties controversy DISCOVERY concerning matter discovery by one or more of O.S.Supp. may obtain pursuant had been waived to 76 phy- to a communication made provides, part: 1. This section provider with reference to sician or health care In cases a claim for any knowl- any physical or mental condition or edge arts or a licensed care, out of by personal examination that, such commu- mental condition in issue the commence- action, nication, testimo- medical or for dam- ment ages, or suit ny in evidence in or where is admitted there- or mental condition of other material and relevant to an issue must be in, according rules of evidence. he shall Theus, P.2d 447 any privilege granted 2. Cox v. deemed to waive Depositions that a following harmonizing methods: construction apparent questions; preferable oral examination or written conflicts is where such construc- interrogatories; production of written possible.3 express Here we things to en- permission documents or declaration 12 O.S.Supp.1982 3201 of for in- ter land other applicability of expressly enumerated spection purposes; physical methods of discovery to all suits of a civil *3 examinations; requests and and mental nature. In 76 O.S.Supp.1985 19(B), we Unless the court orders admission. a have statute scope which authorizes the section, fre- under discovery of as to a privilege quency of is not of use these methods operation of that law when a medical mal- limited. practice action is filed. The statute does The Code does not address the methods which may be as a parte authorize ex employed explore to the information made proper discovery. form of legitimate a subject available as of dis- covery. There is no necessity imply a
Respondent physicians argue that conflict between section 19(B), 3201 and section O.S.Supp.1985 special a 19(B). The discovery methods which applies mal- specifically which medical may scope practice governs 19(B) of exercised under section actions discovery in such those 12 O.S.Supp.1982 which be exercised authorized Ti- 3203(A).4 with that assertion. Ex communications are 19(B) O.S.Supp.1985 tle 76 not an discovery authorized form of meth- patient/physi- complete for a of the waiver The od. district court’s order malpractice in a ac- compelling discovery opposed to qualification tion as cation was excess of its evidentiary privilege under 12 O.S.1981 prohibition writ is issued to 2503(D)(3), in other cases where a enforcement of order. cal, pa- mental or emotional condition aof ASSUMED; ORIGINAL JURISDICTION tient is raised as element of a or a claim WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED. scope discovery defense. The sec- 19(B) tion includes material relevant to DOOLIN, HARGRAVE, C.J., V.C.J., The action. HODGES, WILSON, SIMMS scope discovery under section JJ., concur. is limited to the issue of the condition raised an element of the claim de- OPALA, J., KAUGER, whom J. fense. concurring. joins us, The however, issue before is not SUMMERS, J., concurring specially: scope of discovery by sec authorized I nothing I write to note that detect but rather the methods opinion the statute to discovery may be carried on. Respondent attorney forbid a or his physicians argued that section inquire a being containing a statute no limita opposing party, nor of witness for methods, discovery tion on authorizes ex voluntarily providing witness for legitimate communication as a dis if is his however, covery finding, tool. Such wish. clearly would conflict with the expressed
legislative intent that the
Dis
J.,
KAUGER,
OPALA,
Jus-
proce
discovery
tice,
concurring.
joins,
dure in all suits of a civil nature.
It would
today’s
I
Although
concur
also result
in a construction of section
separately
I
contrary
pronouncement,
write
to add
would
to the rule
Comm.,
Hatchel,
Corp.
Tubescope
Oil
535 P.2d
3. AMF
Co. v.
4. See Eason
Co. v.
the waiver O.S.1981 2503(D)(3)2 personal injury Evidentiary materials declared in compellable adduction to be explicitly implicitly freed or- process the law’s structured Moreover, be- derly pretrial discovery.
cause the of Art. Okl.
Const., operate “special” any invalidate judicial in- regulating
law
quiries, a different construction of § pertinent pro- terms 1.The of 76 2. The terms 12 O.S.1981' 19(B) provide: vide: as to a “The under this Code commu- personal injury "In cases claim for physical, nication relevant to the mental or death of the heal- or patient any pro- emotional condition of the or a licensed out arts ceeding patient relies care, where as his claim or de- condition an element of physical or mental in issue condition death, or, patient’s any pro- after fense action, proceeding commencement of or ceeding party relies damages, suit for or as his claim condition an element or de- condi- in issue or mental fense, qualified that an to the extent adverse tion of obtain in said relevant or whom such regarding said condition statu- any privi- he shall be deemed to waive tory discovery.’’ [Emphasis mine.] lege granted by law cation made to a of Art. Okl. 3. The terms Const., or provide: reference knowledge mental condition or not, Legislature except "The provider by physician or Constitution, pass any local examination of that, authorizing: provided tion, communica- testimony of, Regulating any proceeding judicial changing pro- is admitted in evidence in evidence rules of ceedings inquiry must be material and relevant before the courts.... therein, according evi- [Emphasis [Emphasis mine.] mine.] dence."