Tort reform issue ruled unconstitutional
Supreme Court: Expert testimony not required after decision
State justices say curbs on suing doctors burdens plaintiffs in malpractice suits.
By John Greiner
Published: December 20, 2006
The Oklahoma Supreme Court made it easier Tuesday for Oklahomans to file medical malpractice lawsuits, striking down a legal provision it said sabotages equal access to the courts.
Advertisement
Access to courts
The ruling will result in less access to care and medical costs will go up, he predicted.
John B. Nicks, a Tulsa attorney representing Zeier, said the ruling is "pretty significant” to people who believe they may have been a victim of medical negligence.
Thomas Layon, also an attorney in the case, said the ruling "recognized the right of every citizen to have access to courts without having to resort to this kind of expensive, prequalifying step. That's what it's all about: access to courts.”
Jeffrey A. Glendening, attorney for Dr. Theron, said the decision will have a far reaching impact on tort reform.
"The statute that was found unconstitutional certainly had its intended effect, which was to weed out frivolous and silly lawsuits against physicians and hospitals,” he said.
Glendening said many of these kinds of lawsuits have been filed after a review of their merit by an expert.
"Now plaintiffs' lawyers can revert to the days of old and file petitions in search of lawsuits,” he said.
So far this year, 377 doctors have been sued in state court, said Gordon Amini, general counsel for Physicians Liability Insurance Co., which writes close to 70 percent of the malpractice insurance for Oklahoma doctors.
The insurance company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, he said.
Amini declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit, including comments about the insurance industry because he had not read the opinion yet.
Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford

