Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07008/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FERN MARIE OLIVER, ) 

individually, and THOMAS ) 

OLIVER, individually, husband) 

and wife, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Fl LED 

Utiltt'd St1ra Coun of Appeals 

Tenrh Cirruit 

APR 3 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. 

Clerk 

vs. 

MUSKOGEE REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER, Muskogee, Oklahoma, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-7008 

(D.C. No. 89-225-C) 

( E • D. Okla. ) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

On May S, 1989, plaintiffs-appellants, the Olivers, brought 

this diversity action against defendant-appellant., _Muskogee 

Regional Medical Center (MRMC), alleging that certain MRMC medical 

personnel were negligent in the diagnosis and treatment of Fern 

Oliver's dislocated shoulder. The alleged negligent treatment 

occurred on March 15, 1988, over one year prior to the filing of 

the complaint. The district court, upon the parties' consent, 

referred the case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

* This order and judgment has ·no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7008 Document: 010110105242 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 1 
S 636(b)(2). The magistrate granted sunnnary judgment to MRMC, 

holding that MRMC, as a public trust under Oklahoma law, was 

entitled to procedural and substantive notice of the claim within 

one year of the alleged loss. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, S 156 

(West 1988). Section 156 provides that "[a] claim against the 

state or political subdivision shall be forever barred unless 

notice thereof is presented within one (1) year after the loss 

occurs." Included within the definition of a "political 

subdivision" is a "public trust." See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, 

S 152(8)(d). It is undisputed that MRMC did not receive timely 

notice pursuant to S 156. Plaintiffs appeal, however, contending 

that MRMC is not a valid public trust and therefore was not 

entitled to the notice required by S 156. We affirm. 

MRMC was established pursuant to a public trust instrument 

naming the city of Muskogee, Oklahoma, as beneficiary. See Okla. 

Stat. Ann. tit. 60, SS 176-180 (West 1971). Plaintiffs, citing 

Roberts v. South Oklahoma City Hosp. Trust, 742 P.2d 1077 (Okla. 

1986), contend that MRMC is an illusory trust formed under the 

guise of a public trust in an effort to obtain advantageous 

financing. The Roberts court stated that a trust is illusory if 

"the settlor reserves virtually complete control over the 

trustee's administration of the trust." Id. at 1082. The 

hospital in Roberts "promot[ed] and project[ed] the image of a 

private hospital in its everyday operations." Id. Essentially, 

the private settlor in Roberts retained complete control over the 

administration of the trust. Id. at 1082-83. The "only nexus 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7008 Document: 010110105242 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 2 
l 

between" the hospital and the city was the trust agreement which 

was entered for the sole purpose of obtaining advantageous 

financing. Id. at 1082. Therefore, the trust was held to be 

illusory. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), sunnnary judgment is proper if 

"there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and .•. the 

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We 

review the grant of sunnnary judgment de nQJ!Q, according no 

deference to the magistrate's interpretation of Oklahoma law. See 

Salve Regina College v. Russell, 59 u.s.L.W. 4219, (U.S. 

Mar. 20, 1991) (No. 89-1629) (no deference to district court's 

determination of state law); Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kansas Gas & 

Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1988). In this case there are 

no material disputed facts; the sole issue is whether MRMC is an 

illusory trust under the Roberts standard. 

Roberts is inapposite. Whereas the hospital in Roberts held 

itself out as a private institution, it is uncontroverted that 

MRMC holds itself out as a public hospital. Each patient is put 

on notice that the hospital is a public institution. Also, unlike 

the hospital in Roberts, MRMC retains a close nexus with the city 

of Muskogee. Pursuant to terms of the trust instrument, MRMC is 

owned by the city of Muskogee. MRMC and its related facilities 

are leased to the trustees of the Muskogee Medical Center 

Authority (Authority). At the end of the lease term, MRMC, as 

improved by the Authority, will revert to the possession of 

Muskogee, and the Authority may not encumber the property without 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7008 Document: 010110105242 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 3 
• 

I 

} 

express authorization from the city council of Muskogee. 

Furthermore, the Authority trustees are appointed by the city 

council of Muskogee. Given this close nexus between the hospital 

and the city, we hold that MR.MC is not an illusory trust under the 

Roberts standard. It is uncontroverted that MR.MC was established 

as a public trust under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 60, SS 176-180 (West 

1971). As such, MR.MC was entitled to notice of plaintiffs' claim 

within one year of the alleged loss. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7008 Document: 010110105242 Date Filed: 04/30/1991 Page: 4