Tom Colbert

This case involves a workers' compensation claim filed by Kelly Mowdy against his employer Nomac Drilling LLC for a suspected spider bite at employer-provided housing in Louisiana that developed into a MRSA infection, requiring antibiotics, surgery, and time off work. The Workers' Compensation Court awarded temporary total disability benefits after finding the injury arose out of employment, a decision upheld by a three-judge panel but vacated by the Court of Civil Appeals. On certiorari review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sustained the award, ruling that the claimant's expert medical report met the standards for expert testimony because it referenced the prior diagnosis, included relevant medical history, and clearly connected the injury to employment-related activities.

labor & employment

This case concerned a truck driver's claim for workers' compensation benefits in Oklahoma after suffering a work-related injury in Colorado. The sole issue was whether the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court had jurisdiction over the claim, which turned on whether the employment contract had been formed within the state. The court held that jurisdiction existed because the worker's final assent to the employer's offer of employment occurred during orientation in McAlester, Oklahoma. Under the governing statute, Oklahoma workers' compensation law applies to out-of-state injuries when the contract of employment was made in Oklahoma. The court rejected arguments that earlier communications or acts outside the state constituted acceptance, finding instead that orientation activities such as paperwork and testing represented the point of final assent.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Baby Boy K.B. could be adopted by M.B. and V.B. without the consent of his biological father, T.R., after the child's mother and her husband relinquished their rights. The trial court denied the adoptive parents' petition, finding that T.R. had exercised his parental rights by providing monetary support to the mother during pregnancy and by attending scheduled visitations with the child. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the father was entitled to custody because he had not consented to the adoption and had taken steps to assert his rights promptly after learning of the birth. The decision rested on the legal presumption that both parents' consent is required for adoption and on the father's demonstrated involvement, which distinguished the case from precedents where fathers were unaware or uninvolved. The matter was remanded for further custody proceedings consistent with the child's best interests.

family law

This case involved disciplinary proceedings by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney John McPherson Hayes under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Hayes had entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor assault and battery after a personal dispute in which he allegedly injured a man with his car amid ongoing conflicts involving his ex-wife and her partner, following earlier harassment via texts and emails. The court found that Hayes violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP because the criminal act reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer and brought discredit to the profession. Despite mitigating factors such as Hayes's cooperation, completion of anger management and therapy, and lack of prior formal discipline, the court rejected the Professional Responsibilities Tribunal's recommendation of a private reprimand. It instead imposed a thirty-day suspension from practice along with costs.

criminal law

This case involves a lawsuit by John Acott against his former attorney and law firm alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract over two conflicting contingency fee agreements related to settlements from a 1994 car accident and uninsured motorist policy. In a prior appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed a dismissal, identified material factual issues for trial, and rejected defenses like issue preclusion. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on new grounds that the claims amounted to an impermissible collateral attack based on intrinsic fraud. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the law of the case doctrine required the trial court to follow the first appeal's directives and that the defendants' new arguments did not fall within any exception to that doctrine.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether the Oklahoma Bank and Trust Company, as trustee of a testamentary trust, could deduct from the trust attorney fees of $19,457.80 and a special trustee fee of $8,894.22 that it incurred while recovering royalty income from a five-acre mineral interest in Roger Mills County. The bank had failed for nearly two decades to record a 1989 decree of partial distribution as required by statute, allowing the royalties to be paid instead to the estate of the settlor's widow; after the beneficiary objected during the court's supervision of the twelfth annual accounting, the trial court approved the deductions but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. The court held that under the Oklahoma Trust Act a trustee may not charge the trust for expenses or fees arising from its own negligence in failing to perform a statutory duty, as such costs are not properly incurred in the administration of the trust. It further ruled that a trustee is not entitled to a special fee for remedying the consequences of its own breach of fiduciary duty.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a medical malpractice claim by Patricia Hawk Wing and her husband against Dr. Jay D. Lorton and his medical center, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to diagnose and properly treat fractures in her left foot after a February 2006 car accident, resulting in permanent disability and pain. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the August 2008 lawsuit was barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice, which begins to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury or condition. The trial court granted summary judgment and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that reasonable minds could differ as to when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the wrongful injury caused by the delayed diagnosis and treatment. The court therefore ruled that timeliness could not be decided as a matter of law and remanded the case for determination by the trier of fact under the statutory discovery rule.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a workers' compensation claim for death benefits filed after an oilfield worker was killed on the job, with competing claims submitted by the decedent's mother on behalf of his minor children and by a woman asserting status as his common-law wife. The Workers' Compensation Court granted summary judgment recognizing the common-law wife as the surviving spouse entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the three-judge panel. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that summary judgment is not authorized in workers' compensation proceedings, that the district court's prior determination of common-law marriage status was binding on the compensation court, and that the common-law wife satisfied the statutory definition of surviving spouse under the workers' compensation act. The court reasoned that the compensation system is strictly statutory and its rules do not incorporate district court summary judgment procedures, while the district court's marital status ruling had preclusive effect.

labor & employmentfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned a bank account that decedent William Metz established as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship naming his nephew David Pense as the other tenant, accompanied by an oral agreement that Pense would not access the funds without permission during Metz's lifetime. After Metz's death, his will beneficiaries challenged the account's status, arguing the funds should revert to the estate for distribution under the will, and lower courts imposed a trust to achieve that result. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the signed contract and lack of severance created a valid joint tenancy with survivorship, so the funds passed directly to Pense outside probate. The court reasoned that parol evidence could not override the clear terms of the joint tenancy agreement absent fraud or other grounds for a trust, and no such grounds were present here.

property

This case concerns a dispute between Plano Petroleum and GHK Exploration over ownership of an oil and gas lease covering 320 acres in Oklahoma. Plano claimed full rights under a 2002 assignment that used ambiguous language referring to 'all leasehold' rights in a specific wellbore without a complete legal description of the lease, while GHK claimed the assignment conveyed only wellbore rights and that it later acquired the remaining leasehold interest. The trial court granted summary judgment to Plano, quieting title to the entire lease, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, both interpreting the conveyance as a matter of law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the instrument's language created an ambiguity that prevented determining the parties' intent from its four corners alone, and remanded the case for consideration of extrinsic evidence.

property

This case was a medical negligence and wrongful death action filed by the personal representative of a deceased patient's estate against a hospital and an internist physician, alleging that improper prescription and dosing of heart medication caused the patient's death from pulmonary toxicity. The plaintiff moved early in the case to amend her petition to add two cardiologists as defendants, but the trial court denied the motion on the ground that she lacked capacity to sue at the time of filing because her formal appointment as representative occurred afterward. After a jury verdict for the defendants, which the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment. The court held that Oklahoma's pleading rules require liberal allowance of amendments to correct party-capacity issues and that such amendments may relate back when the original claim is timely and the defendants are not prejudiced.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case is a medical negligence and wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff as personal representative of her deceased mother's estate against Mercy Health Center and Dr. Dixson, alleging that an overdose of Amiodarone caused the decedent's death. The plaintiff filed suit within the two-year limitations period but was not formally appointed as personal representative until after filing; she then sought to amend the petition to add two cardiologists as defendants, but the trial court denied the amendment on grounds that she was not the proper party plaintiff at the outset and the substitution was not due to mistake. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the defendants, and the appeal centers on whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend under the Oklahoma Pleading Code's liberal amendment standards and relation-back principles.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a lawsuit by the Ray family against the City of Broken Arrow after a police officer's pursuit of a fleeing minor driver resulted in a car crash into their home, causing injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs claimed the officer was negligent in conducting the pursuit, making the city vicariously liable under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city based on an exemption from liability for acts conforming to recognized standards. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that this exemption does not apply to decisions to pursue fleeing drivers, as the applicable duty of care—reckless disregard for others' safety—presents a factual question for trial rather than a basis for immunity on summary judgment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with a companion decision on police pursuit liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a wrongful death claim under Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act after a bystander was killed when his car was struck by a fleeing suspect during a high-speed police pursuit of a stolen vehicle. The State sought summary judgment, arguing that GTCA exemptions for law enforcement, discretionary acts, and police protection provided immunity, that the pursuit was not a legal cause of the death, and that the trooper's conduct did not meet the reckless disregard standard. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction to address these recurring public-safety issues but denied extraordinary relief, ruling that the cited GTCA exemptions do not bar all bystander claims from pursuits, that causation presents a factual question, and that emergency-vehicle drivers must operate without reckless disregard for public safety. The Court emphasized that governmental immunity applies to policy formulation but not to routine operational decisions in pursuits.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a rural water district (Logan-1) suing the City of Guthrie for providing water service to a development within Logan-1's assigned territory, alleging violation of federal protection under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) that shields indebted rural water districts from competition while they owe loans from the USDA. The Tenth Circuit certified questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking whether the state constitution's article 5, section 51 prohibition on exclusive franchises or privileges barred Logan-1 from entering such USDA loan agreements or enforcing the federal protection. The court answered that the Oklahoma Rural Water Districts Act creates no exclusive state-granted franchise, and the temporary exclusion right arises instead from the federal loan terms under congressional authority, so the constitutional provision is not implicated and the second question is moot.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned a petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association by Diana Lynn Mooreland-Rucker, who had been admitted in Oklahoma in 1992 but was suspended in 2007 solely for nonpayment of dues after establishing a bankruptcy practice in Texas federal court without admission to the Texas Bar. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found that the petitioner had demonstrated good moral character, paid delinquent fees, and met other requirements for readmission but expressed concerns over whether her prior activities amounted to the unauthorized practice of law. The court exercised de novo review under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings to determine whether the petitioner's federal bankruptcy practice in Texas without a state license constituted unauthorized practice, noting a split of authority on the issue and the absence of a definitive ruling from the Texas Supreme Court.

procedure

The case concerned the petition of Diana Lynn Mooreland-Rucker for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after her membership was stricken solely for nonpayment of dues. While suspended, she had maintained a bankruptcy practice representing clients in federal court in Texas without admission to the Texas State Bar. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found that she had demonstrated good moral character, satisfied continuing legal education requirements, and paid all arrears, but conditioned its recommendation on whether her federal-only practice constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The court held that her activities did not amount to unauthorized practice because they were confined to federal bankruptcy proceedings and resolved the split in authority in favor of reinstatement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved retirees who sued the Lawton School District for breaching early retirement incentive contracts by terminating benefit payments amid a financial crisis. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court's judgment was void for failure to comply with title 62, section 362, which requires proof of the school district's current indebtedness before a contract-based judgment can be entered against a public entity. The court determined that this statutory noncompliance created a jurisdictional defect only in the judgment itself and did not affect the jury's verdict finding a breach of contract or its award of damages. The matter was remanded to the trial court to establish the required proof of indebtedness for the relevant fiscal year and to address requests for attorney fees and prejudgment interest.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns a custody and guardianship dispute over a young child between his mother and paternal grandparents, who had been appointed guardians after an initial finding that the mother was unfit due to issues like alcohol use and parenting skills. The mother later applied multiple times to terminate the guardianship, asserting she had become fit by completing recommended steps such as parenting classes, while the father sought custody; the trial court delayed decisions, made no fitness determination, continued the guardianship, and granted alternating visitation without resolving key issues. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court exceeded its authority and abused its discretion by failing to timely address the mother's fitness and the child's best interests in light of parental rights and the grandparent visitation statute. It reversed and remanded with instructions for reassignment to a new judge, an expedited hearing on the mother's fitness, any transition period, and grandparents' visitation rights under the statute.

family law

This case involved a tenant who sued her landlord and a contractor for negligence after she fell from a second-story balcony when a defective railing gave way, causing her injuries. The tenant had previously notified the landlord of the loose railing, which stemmed from improper installation and missing screws, but no repairs were made. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants under the traditional common-law rule shielding landlords from liability for conditions on leased premises and finding the danger open and obvious; the appellate court affirmed as to the landlord but reversed as to the contractor. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for both parties, holding that landlords owe a general duty to maintain leased premises in a reasonably safe condition regardless of tenant control and that factual issues remained regarding the tenant's knowledge and the obviousness of the risk.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure