Opinion ID: 2335740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 9 The surgeon argues that the patient's medical negligence action must fail because she has not: 1) provided any qualified medical expert witness to testify that the surgeon's performance was below acceptable medical standards thereby causing the alleged injury; and 2) made any showing that any instrumentality solely within the surgeon's control caused or could have cause an injury to her thigh. The patient contends that at this stage of the proceeding, before discovery is conducted and further information becomes available, the report of the neurologist provides sufficient expert testimony to support her allegations. ¶ 10 At the outset we note that, prior to 2006, 63 O.S. Supp.2003 § 1-1708 [3] required an affidavit be attached to the petition in order to file a medical negligence action attesting that a qualified expert had been consulted and issued an opinion sufficient to deem the claim meritorious. However, in Zeier v. Zimmer, 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861, promulgated December 19, 2006, we held that this statute was unconstitutional because it: 1) was a special law prohibited by art. 5, § 46 [4] of the Oklahoma Constitution; and 2) created an unconstitutional monetary barrier to the access to courts guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution art. 2, § 6. [5] ¶ 11 Here, the patient underwent surgery in January of 2006, but she did not file her lawsuit until July 9, 2007, after Zeier, supra, was decided. Two years later, the legislature repealed 63 O.S. Supp.2003 § 1-1708E and enacted 12 O.S. Supp.2009 § 19 [6] which also attempts to require an affidavit in medical malpractice cases. Because no affidavit was required in the window in which the present cause arose, we need not address the Legislature's re-enactment of the affidavit requirement.