Case Title: RODNEY D. WATSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. KNIGHT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 110142

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
RODNEY D. WATSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. KNIGHT  RODNEY D. WATSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. KNIGHT 2013 OK 57 Case Number: 110142 Decided: 06/27/2013 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. RODNEY D. WATSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., an Oklahoma Corporation, and RODNEY D. WATSON, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JUDITH KNIGHT, individually, Defendant-Appellant, and PHOENIX CENTRAL, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendant. ORDER OF SUMMARY DISPOSITION ¶1 Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules provides that "[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling decision." Okla. S. Ct. Rule 1.201. ¶2 After reviewing the record in this case, THE COURT FINDS that our recent decisions in Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, ___P.3d___ and Douglas v. Cox Retirement Props., 2013 OK 37, ___P.3d___, dispose of the issues in this case. ¶3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial court's dismissal of this case is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 27th day of June, 2013. /S/CHIEF JUSTICE COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ. - CONCUR WINCHESTER & TAYLOR, JJ. - DISSENT KAUGER, J., concurring: ¶1 Here, the underlying cause concerns a dispute between an attorney and a client and it depicts the predictable consequence of requiring an affidavit pursuant to12 O.S. Supp. 2009 §19, in actions for professional negligence. ¶2 Plaintiff/Appellee, Attorney Watson (Watson), filed a petition for breach of contract related to unpaid fees and the pro se client filed several counterclaims, alleging legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary relationship, wrongful concealment, negligent omission, and emotional distress. Watson filed a motion to dismiss the legal malpractice counterclaim on the grounds that Defendant/Appellant, Judith Knight (Knight) failed to attach an affidavit of merit as required under 12 O.S. Supp. 2009 §19. The trial court granted Watson's motion to dismiss the legal malpractice counterclaim, and Knight appealed. On appeal, Knight argues that §19 is a violation of her statutory and constitutional rights, and also that it conflicts with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. ¶3 The recent decision of this Court in Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, __P.3d__, is dispositive of this case. In Wall, supra, we declared 12 O.S. 2011 §191 to be a special law in violation of the Okla. Const. art. 5, §46. We also held that it creates an unconstitutional financial burden on access to the courts in violation of the Okla. Const. art. 2, §6. ¶4 The affidavit of merit was addressed in great detail in Wall, supra, and the language is worth repeating. The following paragraphs five through eight are, therefore, substantially identical to our language in Wall. ¶5 In Zeier v. Zimmer, 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861 , we held that a previous incarnation of the affidavit of merit requirement, found at 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 §1-1708.1E was an unconstitutional special law.2 That law required an affidavit in any action for medical liability. The later version of the requirement in §19 required the affidavit in actions for professional negligence.3 ¶6 The language of the later affidavit requirement, codified at 12 O.S. 2011 §19, provides in pertinent part: A. 1. In any civil action for professional negligence, except as provided in subsection B of this section, the plaintiff shall attach to the petition an affidavit… Both the phrases medical liability action and professional negligence are defined at 63 O.S. 2011 §1-1708.1C, but not in §19. We have determined that an action for professional negligence is a medical liability action insofar as 63 O.S. 2011 §1-1708.1C is concerned. ¶7 However, before Wall was promulgated, the trial bench was faced with the problem of vagueness. If the Legislature did not intend professional negligence to be confined to "a negligent act or omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of health care services,"4 then what did it mean? Black's Law Dictionary defines professional as "[a] person who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires of a high level of training and proficiency."5 Profession is further defined as: A vocation requiring advanced education and training; esp., one of the three traditional learned professions-- law, medicine, and the ministry.6 Did that mean that one is required to obtain an affidavit of merit pursuant to §19 before filing suit against any doctor, lawyer or clergyman for negligence in performing their duties? Was professional in this context intended to be broader still? Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes, entitled "Professions and Occupations," contains multiple subchapters that control the licensing and practice of what could be considered various professions in the State of Oklahoma. ¶8 For example, 59 O.S. 2011 §15.1A, which provides definitions under the Oklahoma Accountancy Act, defines accountancy as "the profession or practice of accounting."7 Title 59 O.S. 2011§396.2, concerning funeral services, defines a funeral establishment partly as "any place where any person or persons shall hold forth and be engaged in the profession of undertaking or funeral directing."8 Title 59 also contains other chapters for: barbers, cosmetology, plumbers and plumbing contractors, foresters, sanitarians and environmental specialists, bail bondsmen, pawnbrokers, and many more. Title 18 O.S. 2011 §803 provides definitions for the Professional Entity Act which governs the creation of professional corporations in Oklahoma. It includes a broad definition for professional service.9 ¶9 This cause is a perfect example of what happened because of the perceived ambiguity of §19. Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, __P.3d__, concerned a physician. Here we have an attorney. We have not examined all of the cases in the appellate pipeline, but I would not be surprised at this point if one involved a member of the clergy or if we finished the childhood ditty of Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief, Cowboy, Sailor, Tinker, Tailor, etc. If the Legislature intended to avoid the prohibition on special laws by leaving professional negligence undefined, they caused more problems than they solved. The provision would have, taken to the ultimate logical conclusion, required an affidavit for almost every cause of action. Fortunately, this has been averted by our recent decisions in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, 2013 OK 37, __P.3d__, and Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, __P.3d__. ¶10 Confusion appears to have resulted in the application of 12 O.S. 2011 §19 by the trial court to this action for legal malpractice. Even if §19 had not been held unconstitutional by this Court in Wall, supra, its application to this cause would be in error-- an understandable error, however, given the confusing choice of language in §19. FOOT