Opinion ID: 1135975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: omh's summary judgment quest

Text: OMH urges that if the nisi prius order of dismissal were to be reversed, this court should direct that on remand summary judgment be entered in the hospital's favor because the plaintiffs' claim may not legally be rested on the negligence of the defendant physicians. [35] This argument invokes the terms of 51 O.S.1991 § 152(5), which provide that in no event shall the state be held liable for the tortious conduct of any physician, resident physician or intern while practicing medicine or providing medical treatment to patients. [36] An appellate court will not make first-instance determinations of disputed law or fact issues. That is the trial court's function in every case whether in law, equity or on appeal from an administrative body. [37] Since the legal effect of § 152(5) had neither been raised nor assessed at nisi prius, we cannot craft an initial decision upon an untried question and then direct that it be followed on remand. OMH's immunity-based challenge must first be tendered to and resolved by the trial court. A direction from this court that summary judgment for OMH follow our remand would be procedurally inappropriate for yet another reason. OMH has lodged no counter-petition in error for relief from the claim's dismissal as time-barred. A successful party below who did not bring an appeal, counter - or cross -appeal may, as appellee, argue only those errors which, if rectified, would support the correctness of the trial court's judgment. [38] OMH stands here in a posture restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below [39] that of dismissal. The result which OMH presses in its brief would substitute (for the trial court dismissal's affirmance) a vastly different form of corrective reliefa summary judgment based on the state hospital's immunity from civil liability for negligence of physicians practising on its staff. Even if OMH had, by counter-appeal, urged error in the trial court's failure to enter summary judgment, the record would still be deficient. It does not show that OMH had actually tendered below its summary judgment plea as an alternative to the dismissal quest (based on the statutory time bar) and that the former relief (by summary judgment based on immunity) was denied in the nisi prius exercise of judicial preference for the claim's dismissal as time-barred. In sum, OMH is not asking that we affirm a favorable nisi prius disposition on some theory different from that invoked below. [40] Its plea is rather for a different judgment from that entered belowone that is to be directed sans support in the record or in the trial court's analysis of the case based on the materials tendered to it for decision. [41]