Case Title: BROWN v. CREEK COUNTY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 103658

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
BROWN v. CREEK COUNTY  BROWN v. CREEK COUNTY 2007 OK 56 164 P.3d 1073 Case Number: 103658 Decided: 07/03/2007 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOSHUA RAY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CREEK COUNTY by & through the Creek County Board of County Commissioners, MICHAEL S. WARD, M.D., and CINDY A. NEWELL, L.P.N., Defendants. CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM A FEDERAL COURT ¶0 CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED Richard D. Marrs and E. Diane Hinkle, Richardson Law Firm Tulsa, Oklahoma, for plaintiff. Matthew B. Free and Angela L. Smoot, Best & Sharp, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for defendants. OPALA, J. ¶1 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified the following questions under the authority of the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 1. "Whether the provisions of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act ('GTCA'), Okla Stat. tit. 51, § 151 et seq., specifically §§ 156 and 157 pertaining to the statute of limitations, are in conflict with Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(11)? 2. Whether the claim presentation process and limitations contemplated by Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §§ 156 and 157 can be read in pari materia with Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(11)? 3. Whether the statute of limitations on a claim brought by a prisoner for personal injury against a political subdivision of the state, pursuant to the GTCA, is governed by the statute of limitations in the GTCA, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §§ 156 and 157, or by Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(11)? 4. When does a cause of action accrue if the applicable statute of limitations on a claim brought against a political subdivision of the state for injury to a prisoner is governed by Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §§ 156 and 157? 5. If Okla. Stat. tit. 12., § 95(A)(11) is the applicable statute of limitations on a claim brought by a prisoner for personal injury against a political subdivision of the state, does the 2004 enactment, or 2005 amendment, which adds the language 'claims for injury to the rights of another,' govern the claim?" We answer (a) that a cause of action accrues at the time a plaintiff may maintain the claim, (b) that the statutes of limitation tendered for our construction are in conflict, and (c) that the Governmental Tort Claims Act controls. By today's answers the second and fifth questions are rendered moot. I THE ANATOMY OF FEDERAL LITIGATION ¶2 On October 1, 2004 Joshua Brown (plaintiff) was incarcerated at the Creek County Jail. He requested prescribed medication from defendant Cindy Newell, L.P.N (defendant) and, by October 22, 2004, he had properly submitted a written request for medication. Those requests were ignored. ¶3 On November 1, 2004 plaintiff was rushed to St. John Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he underwent a partial colectomy. Plaintiff claims that his failure to receive the requested medication necessitated the surgical procedure and has resulted in permanent injury. On January 30, 2005 plaintiff gave notice of his claim to the government sought to be sued. The government did not respond. ¶4 On March 20, 2006 plaintiff brought this action against defendants in the District Court in Creek County, Oklahoma, alleging negligence and deprivation of constitutional rights. Defendants removed the suit in reliance on federal question jurisdiction. Unable to determine how Oklahoma law would choose between two provisions in her statutes of limitation that were asserted as applicable to the inmate's claim in his suit against a political subdivision of the government, the federal district court posed to this court the legal questions we answer today. II DEFINING THE POINT AT WHICH A CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES ¶5 Before determining whether the limitations in the Governmental Tort Claims Act and those in ¶6 Defendant argues that a plaintiff must complete all the notice requirements and file suit within one entire year because "One waits at his own risk." ¶7 Because under GTCA's § 157(A) the right to sue does not attach until the claim has been denied or is deemed denied, we hold that causes of action brought under the GTCA do not accrue until that point. III DETERMINING THE CONTROLLING STATUTE ¶8 The terms of § 157 of the GTCA provide that no action brought under that act may be filed more than 180 days after notice of claim to the appropriate political subdivision has been denied or is deemed denied. The terms of ¶9 The plain language of the GTCA dictates that its prescriptions must control over any others. The terms of GTCA's § 164 provide that only those other statutes that are "not inconsistent" with the GTCA "shall apply to and govern all actions brought under the provisions of this act." Section 153 defines the liability of the state as exclusively governed by the GTCA. Further, in case of a conflict between a specific and a general statute, the specific enactment will control. ¶10 CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED ¶ 11 All justices concur. FOOT