WOODS v. UNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.

WOODS v. UNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.
2008 OK 97
196 P.3d 529
Case Number: 105737
Decided: 11/04/2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

FRANK ARTIST WOODS, individually and as the surviving spouse of SHIRLEY JUNE WOODS, and DEBORAH JUNE (WOODS) MIDDLETON, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley June Woods, deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
UNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.; COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a UNITY HEALTH CENTER, an Oklahoma Corporation; VICTOR ROBERTS, M.D.; MICHAEL B. WIENS, M.D.; DAVID HADLEY, M.S.; KEITH CONAWAY, M.D.; FAMILY MEDICINE SPECIALISTS, INC.; and FAMILY MEDICINE SPECIALISTS, P.C., an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendants/Appellees.

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I

¶0 Appellees ask this Court to affirm the decision of the trial court dismissing Appellants' cause of action for failure to satisfy the requisite statute of limitations. Appellees argue that Appellants failed to serve appropriate summons in the case prior to the 180-day period as required by

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

David Swank, Norman, Oklahoma, and Neil P. McGuffee, Matthew C. Goodin, McGUFFEE & GOODIN, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Alexander C. Vosler, Mary B. Hanan, Melissa L. Middleton, JOHNSON HANAN AND VOSLER, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Unity Health Center, Inc., and Community Health Partners, Inc., Defendants/Appellees.
Russell L. Hendrickson, Scott A. Law, PIERCE COUCH HENDRICKSON BAYSINGER & GREEN, L.L.P, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Sooner Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc., and Victor Roberts, M.D., Defendants/Appellees.
Kevin Driskill, C. Scott Jones, Kelly B. Davis, DRISKILL & JONES, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Michael B. Wiens, M.D., Defendants/Appellees.
Stephen B. Peterson, Beverly S. Pearson, J. Mark McAlester, FENTON, FENTON, SMITH, RENEAU & MOON, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for David Hadley, M.S., Keith Conaway, M.D., Family Medicine Specialists, Inc., and Family Medicine Specialists, P.C., Defendants/Appellees.

WINCHESTER, C.J.

¶1 The issue before this Court is the constitutionality of

¶2 Appellants challenge the constitutionality of § 150 as a special law in that it holds medical negligence plaintiffs to different and stricter standards than the general service of process statute,

If service of process is not made upon a defendant within one hundred eighty (180) days after the filing of the petition and the plaintiff cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action may be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to the plaintiff or upon motion….This subsection shall not apply with respect to a defendant who has been outside of this state for one hundred eighty (180) days following the filing of the petition.

Thus, although § 2004(I) permits the dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to serve summons within 180 days, it first requires notice to the plaintiff and affords an opportunity to be heard before such dismissal may occur. Medical liability plaintiffs are not afforded this same due process under § 150.

¶3 We find Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.,

¶4 In addressing the constitutionality of § 1-1708.1E, the Court first determined whether the statute was general or special in nature. Whereas a general law encompasses all of a class, a special law rests on a false or deficient classification and creates preference and establishes inequity. Zeier,

The terms of art. 5, § 46

Zeier

¶5 Just as the statute in Zeier impermissibly singled out medical negligence plaintiffs for different procedural treatment, so too does § 150. Section 150 denies such plaintiffs prior notice of dismissal proceedings while the ordinary plaintiff receives notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to any dismissal. Because § 150 separates medical negligence plaintiffs for different treatment, we determine that it is an unconstitutional special law prohibited by art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR

FOOTNOTES

1 Title 12 O.S.2003, § 150 provides: "In any medical liability action, a summons shall be served on the defendant, or defendants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the lawsuit or the case shall be deemed dismissed without prejudice."