Grider By and Through Grider v. Independent School Dist. No. 89

Grider By and Through Grider v. Independent School Dist. No. 89
1994 OK CIV APP 34
872 P.2d 951
65 OBJ 1432
Case Number: 80814
Decided: 03/01/1994

RAMONA GRIDER, MINOR, BY AND THROUGH FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, GLEN A. GRIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89, APPELLEE.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Virgil C. Black, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher J. Bergin, Morris & Morris, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
O. Clifton Gooding, Don S. Strong, and Joseph K. Goerke, Gooding, Mullenix & Belanger, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Judge

¶1 Appellant Ramona Grider, by her father and next friend Glen A. Grider, appeals a trial court order dismissing her claim against Independent School District No. 89 (School) for injuries she allegedly sustained while attending school in Oklahoma City. Because we conclude the trial court properly found Grider's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm.

¶2 We review the trial court's decision by the standards applicable to the summary adjudication procedure provided in Rule 13, Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S. 1991, Ch. 2, App., because School's Motion to Dismiss and Grider's response were based upon "matters outside the pleading" which were not excluded by the trial court. 12 O.S. 1991 § 2012 (B). Under those standards we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties, and will affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Buckner v. General Motors Corp., 760 P.2d 803 (Okla. 1988). All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Ross v. City of Shawnee, 683 P.2d 535 (Okla. 1984).

¶3 There is no dispute about the facts relevant to determining whether Grider's action was timely filed. A chronology of the procedural steps concerning this claim follows.

May 2, 1991 - Grider allegedly injured

May 29, 1991 - Notice to School

August 27, 1991 - Claim deemed denied under 51 O.S.

1991 § 157 (A)

February 23, 1992 - 180 day period for filing action

under 51 O.S. 1991 § 157 (B) expires

April 2, 1992 - Second notice to School

August 13, 1992 - Petition filed

¶4 For reversal, Grider argues that because the second notice was filed less than one year after the injury,

¶5 We can find no statutory basis for allowing a barred claim to be revived by sending another notice, and to do so would effectively render much of the language concerning the 180 day limitation nugatory. Our obligation is to interpret statutes to give every provision effect. Darnell v. Chrysler Corporation, 687 P.2d 132 (Okla. 1984). Because the undisputed facts are consistent only with the conclusion that Grider's action was not commenced within the time allowed by law, the trial court properly dismissed Grider's claim.

¶6 AFFIRMED.

¶7 JONES, P.J., and HANSEN, J., concur.

Footnotes:

1 51 O.S. 1991 § 156 (B) requires notice of all claims be presented to the governmental entity within one year of injury. This section does not provide for a "second notice."