2023 Oklahoma Statutes › Title 12. Civil Procedure › §12-19.1. Affidavit of consultation with qualified expert - Extension - Exemption.

A. 1. In any civil action for negligence wherein the plaintiff shall be required to present the testimony of an expert witness to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach of duty resulted in harm to the plaintiff, except as provided in subsection B of this section, the plaintiff shall attach to the petition an affidavit attesting that:
a.
the plaintiff has consulted and reviewed the facts of the claim with a qualified expert,
b.
the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including, but not limited to, applicable records, facts or other relevant material, a reasonable interpretation of the facts supports a finding that the acts or omissions of the defendant against whom the action is brought constituted negligence, and
c.
on the basis of the review and consultation of the qualified expert, the plaintiff has concluded that the claim is meritorious and based on good cause.
2. If the civil action for negligence is filed:
a.
without an affidavit being attached to the petition, as required in paragraph 1 of this subsection, and
b.
no extension of time is subsequently granted by the court, pursuant to subsection B of this section,
the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling.
3. The written opinion from the qualified expert shall state the acts or omissions of the defendant or defendants that the expert then believes constituted negligence and shall include reasons explaining why the acts or omissions constituted negligence. The written opinion from the qualified expert shall not be admissible at trial for any purpose nor shall any inquiry be permitted with regard to the written opinion for any purpose either in discovery or at trial.
B. 1. The court may, upon application of the plaintiff for good cause shown, grant the plaintiff an extension of time, not exceeding ninety (90) days after the date the petition is filed, except for good cause shown, to file in the action an affidavit attesting that the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert as described in paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section.
2. If on the expiration of an extension period described in paragraph 1 of this subsection, the plaintiff has failed to file in the action an affidavit as described above, the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, unless good cause is shown for such failure, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling. If good cause is shown, the resulting extension shall in no event exceed sixty (60) days.
C. 1. Upon written request of any defendant in a civil action for negligence, the plaintiff shall, within ten (10) business days after receipt of such request, provide the defendant with:
a.
a copy of the written opinion of a qualified expert mentioned in an affidavit filed pursuant to subsection A or B of this section, and
b.
an authorization from the plaintiff in a form that complies with applicable state and federal laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, for the release of any and all relevant records related to the plaintiff for a period commencing five (5) years prior to the incident that is at issue in the civil action for negligence.
2. If the plaintiff fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this subsection, the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, unless good cause is shown for such failure, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling.
D. A plaintiff in a civil action for negligence may claim an exemption to the provisions of this section based on indigency pursuant to the qualification rules established as set forth in Section 4 of this act.
Added by Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 12, § 2.
NOTE: Text formerly resided under repealed Title 12, § 19, which was derived from Laws 2009, c. 228, § 2, which was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013).