This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the family of a deceased child against several doctors and a hospital, resulting in jury verdicts for the defendants. After the trial, the plaintiffs learned that one juror had concealed racial bias against African Americans (the plaintiffs' race), misrepresented his views on the burden of proof during voir dire, and provided incomplete information about his criminal history on the juror questionnaire. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the denial of a new trial de novo and held that the juror's participation violated the plaintiffs' constitutional right to an impartial jury under Article 2, Section 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution, warranting a new trial against the two defendant doctors. The court emphasized that juror bias claims of this nature raise issues of constitutional dimension requiring independent review rather than deferential standards.
This case involved medical malpractice claims by a plaintiff against providers who performed a prostate biopsy, diagnosed cancer, conducted surgery to remove the prostate, and provided post-surgical treatment. The trial court granted judgments for the defendants, including a jury verdict for the pathologist and summary judgments for others based on expert evidence of compliance with medical standards. On certiorari review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the judgments except for the claim against the surgeon, holding that summary judgment was improper on the theory of failure to obtain informed consent for continued post-surgical treatment after the pathology showed no cancer in the removed prostate. The court reasoned that physicians have an affirmative duty to disclose material facts necessary for patients to make informed decisions about treatment, and the evidentiary materials did not rule out liability on this ground under established precedents like Scott v. Bradford.
This case concerns an unclassified state employee who sued the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for unpaid wages allegedly owed for on-call time under the Protection of Labor Act, seeking liquidated damages, costs, and attorney fees pursuant to 40 O.S. section 165.9. The federal district court certified the question of whether such an employee has a private right of action against the State under that section. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered that the State is not included in the statutory definition of "employer" applicable to sections 165.1 through 165.11, precluding reliance on section 165.9 for the requested relief. The core reasoning relied on the plain statutory language, the Commissioner's administrative exclusion of state wage claims, and the distinction between administrative processes and actions at law.
This case was a lawyer disciplinary proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Gray Moore Strickland after he pleaded guilty in federal court to the misdemeanor of willfully failing to file his 2008 individual income tax return, for which he received five years of supervised probation and was ordered to pay $64,729.36 in restitution. The complaint alleged violations of Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Following a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal that included evidence of mitigating factors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review and imposed public censure, finding that the attorney's broader pattern of unpaid taxes—including employment taxes from 2001-2007—amounted to serious misconduct that undermined public respect for the law and the legal profession, consistent with prior precedent, while noting that suspension was not warranted given his competence and need to meet restitution obligations.
This case involves a former McDonald's employee suing the company for intentional infliction of emotional distress after his manager allegedly denied three requests to take anti-seizure medication and called him a slur, causing the minor employee to fear a seizure and leave work in distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to McDonald's based on issue preclusion from a prior federal court ruling that dismissed the employee's ADA claims, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the federal court had only determined the employee was not disabled—which ended its jurisdiction—and had not actually adjudicated whether the manager's conduct was extreme and outrageous under state tort law, an issue that reasonable people could find meets the threshold for the claim.
This case concerned the amount of support alimony awarded to the wife in a divorce after a 22-year marriage during which she had primarily cared for the children and had limited earning capacity as a birth certificate clerk. The trial court awarded the wife a total of $9,000 in support alimony, but on review the court held that this amount was insufficient and constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court found that the trial court had failed to properly weigh the relevant Oklahoma factors, including the length of the marriage, the significant disparity in the parties' earning capacities, the wife's demonstrated need for additional income to cover living expenses and pursue further education, and the husband's ability to pay given his higher income and assets. Based on those considerations, the court recalculated and increased the award to $54,000, payable at $1,500 per month for 36 months.