Crawford ex rel. C.C.C. v. OSU Med. Trust

• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Docket Number: 117,870
• Parties: Miranda and Colby CRAWFORD, Natural Parents and ON BEHALF OF C.C.C., a Minor, and Miranda and Colby Crawford, Individually, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. OSU MEDICAL TRUST, a Public Trust d/b/a OSU Medical Center, Defendant/Respondent, and Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a St. Francis Children's Hospital, Pediatric Ophthalmology, P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, d/b/a Pediatric Eye Associates and Family Eye Care, and Scott S. Sadeghi, D.O., Defendants
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

510 P.3d 824

Miranda and Colby CRAWFORD, Natural Parents and ON BEHALF OF C.C.C., a Minor, and Miranda and Colby Crawford, Individually, Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
v.
OSU MEDICAL TRUST, a Public Trust d/b/a OSU Medical Center, Defendant/Respondent,
and
Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a St. Francis Children's Hospital, Pediatric Ophthalmology, P.C., an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, d/b/a Pediatric Eye Associates and Family Eye Care, and Scott S. Sadeghi, D.O., Defendants

No. 117,870

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

FILED MARCH 22, 2022

Paul T. Boudreaux, Richardson Richardson Boudreaux, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Petitioners.

Leslie C. Weeks, Brandon C. Whitworth, Rodolf & Todd, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondent OSU Medical Trust, a Public Trust.

KANE, V.C.J.:

¶1 We granted certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order dismissing Defendant/Respondent OSU Medical Trust, doing business as OSU Medical Center (OSUMC), from this medical malpractice lawsuit. The issue is whether Plaintiffs/Appellants Miranda and Colby Crawford, Natural Parents and on Behalf of C.C.C., a Minor, and Miranda and Colby Crawford, Individually (collectively, the Crawfords) complied with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O.S. §§ 151 - 172. We hold that the Crawfords failed to present notice of their tort claim within one year of the date the loss occurred and, pursuant to 51 O.S.Supp.2012 § 156(B), their claims against OSUMC are forever barred. We affirm the trial court's order dismissing OSUMC with prejudice.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On June 16, 2017, C.C.C., a minor child, was taken to Defendant Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.'s emergency room due to problems with his eye. There, C.C.C. was seen by Dr. Sawyer Hall. The Crawfords allege that Dr. Hall's misdiagnosis resulted in C.C.C.'s eye being removed on June 21, 2017.

¶3 The Crawfords initially filed this lawsuit against Saint Francis on February 2, 2018. At the time of filing, the Crawfords believed Dr. Hall was an employee of Saint Francis and alleged that Saint Francis was liable for the negligence of its agents and representatives, which resulted in the enucleation of C.C.C.'s eye. Sometime later in February 2018, the Crawfords learned or discovered that Dr. Hall was actually an intern or resident physician and an employee of OSUMC and not an employee of Saint Francis. The parties agree OSUMC is a public trust and subject to the GTCA. The Crawfords gave notice of their tort claim to OSUMC on August 22, 2018. On December 12, 2018, OSUMC denied the claim based on failure to give notice of the claim within one year of the date of loss, as required by the GTCA. The Crawfords amended their petition to add OSUMC as a defendant. In their Third Amended Petition, the Crawfords claimed that the acts and omissions of OSUMC's agents, employees, representatives, interns and residents caused damages, including the enucleation of C.C.C.'s eye. The Crawfords also explained that they had "accumulated their child's medical records and secured the services of an expert to advise them concerning any breaches of the National Standards of Care. Thereafter, Plaintiffs learned in approximately February of 2018, that the Defendants breached the National Standards of Care."

¶4 OSUMC entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on failure to comply with the notice provisions of the GTCA and for failure to state a claim. OSUMC argued that the Crawfords did not present their notice of tort claim within one year after the date of loss, as required by 51 O.S. § 156(B). Notice was given on August 22, 2018, which was one year and two months after Dr. Hall treated C.C.C. and the eye was removed. The Crawfords responded that the discovery rule tolled the one-year notice period. The Crawfords asserted that they did not learn of OSUMC's malpractice until all the medical records were collected and reviewed. The earliest they knew or could have known of OSUMC's breach of the national standards of care, which resulted in C.C.C.'s injury, was approximately February of 2018 "when their

510 P.3d 829

counsel conferred with and secured the opinion of an expert" and, therefore, they had until February 2019 to give notice of the tort claim to OSUMC. The trial court granted OSUMC's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the one-year notice requirement in the GTCA. The trial court certified the order for interlocutory review pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 952(b)(3). We previously granted certiorari.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5 A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo . See Video Gaming Techs., Inc. v. Tulsa Cty. Bd. of Tax Roll Corr. , 2019 OK 84, ¶ 2, 455 P.3d 918, 919. The notice required by 51 O.S. § 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-year notice period in 51 O.S.Supp.2012 § 156(B) of the GTCA. This proposition of error presents a question of law, which we review de novo . See Grisham v. City of Oklahoma City , 2017 OK 69, ¶ 4, 404 P.3d 843, 846. Whether 51 O.S.Supp.2012 § 156(E) tolls the notice period due to minority and whether 12 O.S.2011 § 96 applies to a GTCA claim both present issues of statutory interpretation. Issues of statutory interpretation also present questions of law and are reviewed de novo . See Fanning v. Brown , 2004 OK 7, ¶ 8, 85 P.3d 841, 845. Appellate courts have plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal rulings. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

A. If the Discovery Rule Applies to the Underlying Tort, It Applies to the Commencement of the One-Year Notice Period in the GTCA

¶6 The parties agree OSUMC is a public trust and that the Crawfords' claims are subject to the requirements of the GTCA.² "The GTCA is the exclusive remedy by which an injured plaintiff may recover against a governmental entity for its negligence." Smith v. City of Stillwater , 2014 OK 42, ¶ 14, 328 P.3d 1192, 1198. The GTCA narrowly structures the method and timeframe for bringing a tort claim against the State or a political subdivision. See Watkins v. Cent. State Griffin Mem'l Hosp. , 2016 OK 71, ¶ 21, 377 P.3d 124, 130 (citing 51 O.S.2011 § 156). Section 156(B) of the GTCA provides, in pertinent part:

[C]laims against the state or a political subdivision are to be presented within one (1) year of the date the loss occurs. A claim against the state or a political subdivision shall be forever barred unless notice thereof is presented within one (1) year after the loss occurs.

51 O.S.Supp.2012 § 156(B). "The [GTCA] requires, without exception, that the plaintiff give notice and commence an action [in the district court] within the prescribed statutory

510 P.3d 830

time limits." Jarvis v. City of Stillwater , 1987 OK 5, ¶ 5, 732 P.2d 470, 473.

¶7 Generally, a cause of action accrues, and the applicable statute of limitations begins to run, when the injury occurs. See Calvert v. Swinford , 2016 OK 100, ¶ 11, 382 P.3d 1028, 1033. The common law discovery rule tolls the limitations period until the injured party knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury. See id. ; Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc. , 2011 OK 9, ¶¶ 24-25, 247 P.3d 1183, 1189-90. Whether the discovery rule applies to the statutory time limits in the GTCA depends on the underlying tort. The discovery rule only applies in certain tort cases. See Calvert , 2016 OK 100, ¶ 11, 382 P.3d at 1033. If the discovery rule applies to the underlying tort in a non-GTCA case, it applies to the commencement of the one-year notice period when that tort claim is subject to the GTCA.

¶8 The discovery rule applies to medical negligence claims that are not subject to the requirements of the GTCA. See 76 O.S.2011 § 18 ; Wing v. Lorton , 2011 OK 42, 261 P.3d 1122 (applying 76 O.S. § 18) ; Seitz v. Jones , 1961 OK 283, 370 P.2d 300 (applying the common law discovery rule). Thus, we hold the discovery rule applies to the commencement of the one-year notice period when a medical negligence claim is subject to the GTCA.³

B. The Discovery Rule Does Not Toll Commencement of the One-Year Notice Period Until the Crawfords Learned the Tortfeasor was an Employee of the State or a Political Subdivision

¶9 The Crawfords argue the discovery rule should apply because they did not learn Dr. Hall was an employee of an entity subject to the GTCA until February 2018. The Crawfords explain:

Plaintiffs, through counsel, did not discover the malpractice by Defendant, OSU, until all the medical records of C.C.C. were collected and reviewed. C.C.C.'s misdiagnosis occurred at Saint Francis Children's Hospital, and Plaintiffs did not have reason to know and did not know that a physician who was involved in malpractice worked for OSU rather than Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., where the malpractice occurred. The earliest that Plaintiffs knew or could have known

...