Hall v. Geo Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 112222.,112222. |
| Citation | 324 P.3d 399 |
| Parties | Walter HALL v. The GEO GROUP, INC. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Honorable Bill Graves, Trial Judge.
¶ 0 Walter Hall was allegedly injured while being transported to a medical appointment by a private prison facility, GEO. Two years and two months later, he filed a lawsuit against it for negligence. GEO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired and the lawsuit was untimely. Hall insisted that the limitation period was tolled due to his injury. The trial court granted GEO's motion for summary judgment and Hall appealed. We hold that pursuant to 57 O.S.2011 § 566.4, compliance with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) is required to bring a tort action against a private correctional facility. The notice required by the GTCA is a mandatory prerequisite to filing a claim for tort damages and it is a jurisdictional requirement. Because Hall did not comply with the GTCA and the notice of claim requirement of the GTCA is only tolled 90 days due to incapacity from an injury, the cause must be dismissed as untimely filed.
TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. CAUSE DISMISSED.
Rex Travis, Paul Kouri, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant.
Don G. Pope, Norman, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
¶ 1 The dispositive issue presented is whether the plaintiffs negligence action should be dismissed as untimely brought. We hold that, pursuant to 57 O.S.2011 § 566.4, compliance with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) is required for a prisoner, or former prisoner, to bring a tort action against a private correctional facility. 1 The notice required by the GTCA is a mandatory prerequisite jurisdictional requirement 2 to filing a claim for tort damages. 3 Because Hall did not comply with the notice requirements and the notice of claim requirement of the GTCA is only tolled for 90 days due to incapacity from an injury, the cause must be dismissed as untimely filed. 4
¶ 2 The Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) admitted the plaintiff/appellant, Walter Hall (Hall) as an inmate in April of 2010, after his convictions for foiling to comply with the sex offender registry and falsely impersonating another person. While in DOC custody, Hall suffered a head injury from a fell at a hospital while he was being examined for alleged chest pains. As a result of the fall, Hall suffered a subdural hematoma which required surgery. He receiveda metal plate surgically implanted over his brain. After the surgery, he contracted a staphylococcus infection, the metal plate was removed, and he was confined to a wheelchair.
¶ 3 On April 28, 2010, DOC transferred Hall to a private correctional facility owned and operated by the defendant/appellee, GEO in Lawton, Oklahoma. On September 7, 2010, GEO transported Hall in a van to Oklahoma City for medical treatment. His feet and hands were shackled, but his wheelchair was not restrained or secured to the van. When the driver moved the van abruptly, the wheelchair toppled over. Hall allegedly injured his shoulder and chest, and he contends that he lost consciousness and re-injured the hematoma.
¶ 4 GEO diverted the van to the local emergency room at Southwestern Medical Center Hospital in Lawton, Oklahoma, where Hall was examined, treated for a headache, and returned to the prison. The emergency room exam found no signs of visible injury or distress.5 After he returned to the prison, Hall complained of being unable to sleep and having very bad headaches. At some point later, Hall alleges that he had surgery on his shoulder and that the injury to his chest was not timely addressed and now his chest is deformed. Hall was transferred to the minimum security facility, John H. Lilley Correctional Center in Boley, Oklahoma, on February 17, 2011, and released from confinement in September of 2011.
¶ 5 On June 18, 2012, Hall filed a lawsuit in the district court of Oklahoma County, alleging that the employees of GEO were negligent when they did not strap his wheelchair in the van to prevent it from toppling over and injuring him GEO filed a motion to dismiss on July 10, 2012, arguing that: 1) pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 95(11),6 an inmate is required to bring a claim for injury within one year from the date the injury occurred; and 2) because the incident occurred on September 7, 2010, Hall's opportunity to bring his lawsuit expired on September 7, 2011, nearly a year before he actually filed the lawsuit.
¶ 6 Hall responds that: 1) he was under a legal disability until sometime after he was released from confinement in 2011, which prevented the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 $96; 7 and 2) even if he were not under such a disability, the one-year statute of limitations for inmates is an unconstitutional special law 8 and which violates the equal protection clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions.9
¶ 7 Neither party noted the application of 57 O.S.2011 § 566.4. It requires compliance with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) when a prisoner or former prisoner brings a tort action against a private correctional facility.10 On December 3, 2012, the trial court overruled GEO's motion to dismiss.11 On May 3, 2103, GEO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the action was untimely and that administrative remedies were not property exhausted.
¶ 8 Hall responded that: 1) the administrative remedies provided to inmates were nothing more than an “offender grievance process” intended to provide answers to inmate questions, not to provide compensation for medical bills and pain and suffering and 2) he was under a legal disability which tolled the statute of limitations. Hall also, again, argued that, in the event the statute of limitation period was not tolled, the one year limitation period applicable only to inmates was an unconstitutional special law and it violates equal protection
¶ 9 On September 6, 2013, the trial court granted GEO's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of GEO. Hall appealed to this Court on October 3, 2013. We retained the cause on November 13, 2013. On January 23, 2014, we ordered both parties to brief simultaneously the applicability of 57 O.S.2011 § 566.4 B(2) 12 and the briefing was completed on February 7, 2014.
TO FILING A CLAIM FOR TORT DAMAGES AND THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GTCA. BECAUSE NOTICE OF A CLAIM IS ONLY TOLLED 90 DAYS DUE TO INCAPACITY FROM INJURY, THE CAUSE MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED.
¶ 11 Neither party noted the existence or applicability of 57 O.S.2011 $566.4 which applies the notice provisions of the GTCA to lawsuits brought by prisoners or former prisoners against private correctional facilities.13 GEO contends that it is dispositive of this cause, but Hall argues that because GEO did not raise the statute's applicability and the trial court did not apply it, the statute should not be applicable to this appeal
¶ 12 Not only do we take judicial notice of the statute, 14 but jurisdictional inquires may be made by the courts at any stage of the proceedings.15 This Court is duty bound to inquire into its own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the court below from which the case came by appeal.16 This duty exists even if it is not raised by the parties. 17
¶ 13 Compliance with the statutory notice provisions of the GTCA is a jurisdictional requirement to be completed prior to the filing of any pleadings.18 The record before us does not show that Hall has complied with the notice provisions of the GTCA, nor does he allege that he has complied. In addition to the applicability of § 566.4, 57 O.S.2011 § 566.5 provides that complete exhaustion of statutory remedies against private correctional facilities is jurisdictional 19 Based on the record provided, and the plain and unambiguous requirements of 57 O.S.2011 § 566.420 and § 566.5,21 the district court had no jurisdiction over the tort claims asserted in Hall's lawsuit and properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
¶ 14 Because we determine that the GTCA is controlling and the one year limitation period of 12 O.S.2011 § 96 is inapplicable to this cause, we need not address Hall's constitutional challenges to § 96. 22 However, Hall also argues that the notice and limitation provisions of the GTCA also violate equal protection and are an unconstitutional special law.23 This argument is unconvincingbecause by extending the notice provisions of the GTCA to private prisons, the Legislature has ensured equal treatment between plaintiffs who are or were confined in state owned prisons with those who are or were confined in private prisons as well as any other plaintiff who has a tort claim against a governmental entity. Furthermore, we have already upheld the GTCA under equal protection and special law challenges to the dichotomy it creates between plaintiffs.24
¶ 15 As for Hall's claims of tolling because he was under a legal disability 25 we have previously held that where the GTCA includes specific provisions, the general statute of limitations does not apply.26 In Cruse v. Board of County Commissioners of Atoka County, 1995 OK 143, ¶ 16, 910 P.2d 998, the Court held that only where valid notice had been given and the claim had been timely filed, invoking the court's power, could the broad terms of the general savings statute 12 O.S.1991 § 100 apply.27 The notice provisions of the GTCA limit tolling due to incapacity from injury to 90 days.28
¶ 16 The GTCA gave Hall, at most, one year to file his lawsuit. [90 days for the prison to deny a claim, 180 days to bring an action after a claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I. T. K. v. Mounds Pub. Sch.
...v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127, ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 (a school district is a political subdivision for purposes of the GTCA).25 Hall v. The GEO Group, Inc. , 2014 OK 22, ¶¶ 1, 13, 324 P.3d 399, 400, 404.26 1997 OK 26, 934 P.2d 1082.27 1997 OK 26, 934 P.2d at 1086.28 1981 OK 107, 634 P.2d 720.2......
-
Crawford ex rel. C.C.C. v. OSU Med. Trust
...§ 156(B) is considered a mandatory prerequisite and jurisdictional requirement to filing a tort claim in district court. See Hall v. GEO Grp., Inc. , 2014 OK 22, ¶¶ 1, 19, 324 P.3d 399, 400, 406. The Crawfords contend the trial court erred by not applying the discovery rule1 to toll the one......
-
Osage Nation v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Osage Cnty.
...the Court is not bound by the trial court's reasoning and may affirm the judgment below on a different legal rationale." Hall v. GEO Group, Inc. , 2014 OK 22, ¶ 17, 324 P.3d 399, to reach the merits of a controversy. See, e.g. , Keating v. Johnson , 1996 OK 61, 918 P.2d 51 (assuming without......
-
Dutton v. City of Midwest City
...even in the absence of such a motion, it is the bounden duty of the court to inquire into its own jurisdiction.”).7 See, e.g., Hall v. GEO Group, Inc., 2014 OK 22, ¶ 12, 324 P.3d 399, 404 (rule is stated in the context of appellate jurisdiction, and the opinion cites several of this Court's......