Medical Malpractice Petition - Oklahoma

PETITION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — STATE OF OKLAHOMA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. Background Facts
4. Count I — Medical Negligence (Against [DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN])
5. Count II — Lack of Informed Consent (Against [DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN])
6. Count III — Vicarious Liability / Agency (Against [DEFENDANT HOSPITAL])
7. Count IV — Corporate / Institutional Negligence (Against [DEFENDANT HOSPITAL])
8. Damages
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Demand for Jury Trial
11. Reservation of Rights
12. Signature and Service Blocks
13. Verification
14. Certificate of Service
15. Oklahoma Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CASE NO. CJ-[YEAR]-[________________________________]

PETITION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2.1 Plaintiff

2.1.1 Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF'S FULL LEGAL NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a natural person who at all times relevant to this action was a resident of [CITY, COUNTY] County, Oklahoma.

2.2 Defendants

2.2.1 Defendant [DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN'S NAME], M.D. ("Defendant Physician") is, on information and belief, a natural person licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma, License No. [____________], whose principal place of practice is located at [ADDRESS], [CITY], Oklahoma.

2.2.2 Defendant [DEFENDANT MEDICAL GROUP, P.C.] ("Defendant Group") is, on information and belief, an Oklahoma professional corporation with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], [CITY], Oklahoma. At all times relevant, Defendant Physician acted within the course and scope of [his/her] employment, agency, or contractual relationship with Defendant Group.

2.2.3 Defendant [DEFENDANT HOSPITAL'S NAME] ("Defendant Hospital") is, on information and belief, a [Oklahoma corporation / nonprofit corporation / governmental subdivision] doing business at [ADDRESS], [CITY], Oklahoma, holding itself out to the public as a full-service [acute-care/specialty] hospital.

2.2.4 Defendants John Does 1–10 are unknown nurses, residents, fellows, technicians, contractors, and other healthcare personnel who participated in the care of Plaintiff and whose negligent acts or omissions contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. Their identities will be disclosed and the petition amended upon discovery.

2.3 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

2.3.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Okla. Const. art. VII, § 7(a) as a court of general jurisdiction. The amount in controversy exceeds the amount required for diversity jurisdiction in the United States district courts, exclusive of interest and costs, but is pleaded in compliance with 12 O.S. § 2008(A)(2) without specifying a particular dollar amount.

2.4 Personal Jurisdiction

2.4.1 This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each Defendant resides in, maintains a principal place of business in, transacts substantial business in, and committed the negligent acts and omissions giving rise to this action within the State of Oklahoma. 12 O.S. § 2004(F).

2.5 Venue

2.5.1 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137 and 12 O.S. § 139 because [the cause of action arose in [COUNTY] County / Defendant Physician resides in [COUNTY] County / Defendant Hospital maintains its principal place of business in [COUNTY] County / Defendant Hospital has a designated agent for service of process in [COUNTY] County].

2.6 Statute of Limitations

2.6.1 This action is timely under 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3). The two-year limitations period applicable to actions for injury to the rights of another (including medical negligence) began to run on [DATE PLAINTIFF DISCOVERED OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE INJURY AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO MEDICAL TREATMENT] under the discovery rule recognized in Marshall v. Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon, P.C., 1995 OK 66, 899 P.2d 621, and Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88, 760 P.2d 816. This Petition is filed within two (2) years of that date.

2.7 No Affidavit of Merit Required

2.7.1 No affidavit, certificate, or other expert pre-screening is a prerequisite to filing this Petition. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that 12 O.S. § 19.1, and its predecessor § 19, are unconstitutional as a special law in violation of Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46 and as an impermissible barrier to court access in violation of Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6. John v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 2017 OK 81, 405 P.3d 681; Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, 302 P.3d 775; Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861.

2.8 No Statutory Damages Cap

2.8.1 No statutory cap applies to Plaintiff's recovery of noneconomic damages. The $350,000 cap formerly imposed by 23 O.S. § 61.2(B) was held unconstitutional as a special law violating Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46 in Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS

3.1 The Physician-Patient Relationship

3.1.1 On or about [DATE], Plaintiff presented to Defendant Physician at [LOCATION] for evaluation and treatment of [PRESENTING CONDITION]. By accepting Plaintiff as a patient and undertaking to render professional medical services, Defendant Physician formed a physician-patient relationship with Plaintiff and assumed the duties owed by a physician to a patient under Oklahoma law.

3.1.2 At all times relevant, Defendant Physician held [himself/herself] out as a [BOARD-CERTIFIED SPECIALTY, e.g., orthopedic surgeon] possessing the knowledge, training, skill, and experience ordinarily possessed by physicians in good standing in the same specialty.

3.2 The Course of Treatment

3.2.1 On [DATE], [SPECIFIC EVENT, e.g., "Defendant Physician ordered an MRI of Plaintiff's lumbar spine, which revealed [FINDING]"].

3.2.2 On [DATE], [SPECIFIC EVENT].

3.2.3 On [DATE], [SPECIFIC EVENT — continue chronologically].

3.2.4 [Continue numbered sub-paragraphs through the date of injury.]

3.3 The Negligent Act or Omission

3.3.1 On or about [DATE], Defendant Physician [DESCRIBE THE NEGLIGENT ACT/OMISSION IN PLAIN, FACTUAL TERMS — e.g., "performed a left-side hemilaminectomy at L4–L5 in which [he/she] severed the L5 nerve root"].

3.3.2 The act/omission described in paragraph 3.3.1 was a deviation from the applicable standard of care for a reasonably prudent [SPECIALTY] physician practicing under similar circumstances in Oklahoma or a similar locality.

3.4 The Injury and Its Discovery

3.4.1 As a direct and proximate result of the negligent act/omission, Plaintiff suffered [DESCRIBE INJURIES — anatomic, functional, cognitive, psychological].

3.4.2 Plaintiff first discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence first should have discovered, that [his/her] injury was caused by Defendant Physician's negligence on or about [DISCOVERY DATE], when [DESCRIBE THE EVENT THAT TRIGGERED DISCOVERY — e.g., "a second-opinion neurosurgeon advised Plaintiff that the L5 nerve root had been transected during the [DATE] surgery"].

3.5 Subsequent Treatment and Sequelae

3.5.1 As a consequence of Defendant Physician's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone the following remedial care: [LIST WITH DATES AND PROVIDERS].

3.5.2 Plaintiff continues to suffer [ONGOING SYMPTOMS, LIMITATIONS, AND PROGNOSIS] and is reasonably expected to require future medical care, including [ITEMIZE WHERE KNOWN].

4. COUNT I — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST [DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN])

4.1 Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 3.5.2 as though fully set forth herein.

4.2 At all times relevant, Defendant Physician owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised by reasonably prudent physicians in the same specialty practicing in Oklahoma or a similar medical community under like circumstances. Boyanton v. Reif, 1990 OK 13, 798 P.2d 603.

4.3 Defendant Physician breached that duty by, among other acts and omissions:

a. Failing to obtain an adequate history and physical examination prior to [PROCEDURE/TREATMENT];

b. Failing to order or interpret diagnostic studies that a reasonably prudent [SPECIALTY] physician would have ordered or interpreted under the circumstances;

c. Misdiagnosing Plaintiff's condition as [WRONG DIAGNOSIS] when the correct diagnosis was [CORRECT DIAGNOSIS];

d. Performing [PROCEDURE] when it was not medically indicated, or performing it in a technically negligent manner by [SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ERROR];

e. Failing to recognize and timely respond to intra-operative or post-operative signs of [COMPLICATION];

f. Failing to consult with or refer Plaintiff to a [SUB-SPECIALIST] when such consultation or referral was indicated;

g. Failing to provide adequate post-operative monitoring, follow-up, and instructions; and

h. Such other acts and omissions as discovery may reveal.

4.4 Each breach identified in paragraph 4.3 was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries described in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.

4.5 Plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result.

5. COUNT II — LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (AGAINST [DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN])

5.1 Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 4.5 as though fully set forth herein.

5.2 Under Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165, 606 P.2d 554, a physician must disclose to the patient all material risks, benefits, and reasonable alternatives to a proposed procedure or treatment, such that a prudent patient in the patient's position would be able to make an informed decision.

5.3 Prior to the [PROCEDURE/TREATMENT] performed on [DATE], Defendant Physician failed to disclose to Plaintiff one or more material risks, alternatives, or limitations, including but not limited to:

a. The material risk that [SPECIFIC UNDISCLOSED RISK — e.g., "permanent nerve injury resulting in foot drop"];

b. The reasonable alternative of [ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT, e.g., "conservative management with physical therapy and epidural steroid injection"];

c. The material limitation that [LIMITATION — e.g., "the procedure had a [X]% reported success rate for patients with Plaintiff's clinical profile"]; and

d. [Other material undisclosed information].

5.4 A reasonably prudent patient in Plaintiff's position, having been informed of the risks, alternatives, and limitations identified in paragraph 5.3, would not have consented to the [PROCEDURE/TREATMENT].

5.5 Defendant Physician's failure to obtain informed consent was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

6. COUNT III — VICARIOUS LIABILITY / AGENCY (AGAINST [DEFENDANT HOSPITAL])

6.1 Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 5.5 as though fully set forth herein.

6.2 At all times relevant, the negligent healthcare personnel — including [name of nurse(s), resident(s), and any agent or apparent agent of Defendant Hospital] — acted within the course and scope of [his/her/their] employment, agency, or apparent agency with Defendant Hospital.

6.3 Defendant Hospital held out the [emergency department / labor-and-delivery unit / surgical suite / radiology department / other unit] as its own department staffed by its own personnel, and Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Hospital — rather than on any independent contractor — to provide the medical care at issue. Weldon v. Seminole Mun. Hosp., 1985 OK 94, 709 P.2d 1058.

6.4 Defendant Hospital is therefore vicariously liable, under principles of respondeat superior and ostensible/apparent agency, for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees, agents, and apparent agents.

7. COUNT IV — CORPORATE / INSTITUTIONAL NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST [DEFENDANT HOSPITAL])

7.1 Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 6.4 as though fully set forth herein.

7.2 Defendant Hospital owed Plaintiff independent, non-delegable duties to:

a. Adequately credential, monitor, and supervise its medical staff;

b. Maintain safe, properly staffed, and properly equipped facilities;

c. Promulgate, implement, and enforce policies and protocols consistent with the prevailing standard of care;

d. Furnish competent nursing, technical, and ancillary personnel; and

e. Adopt and enforce reasonable patient-safety, infection-control, and clinical-event reporting systems.

7.3 Defendant Hospital breached those duties by, among other acts and omissions: [LIST INSTITUTIONAL FAILURES — e.g., "credentialing Defendant Physician despite documented prior adverse events"; "failing to enforce its surgical-time-out policy"; "failing to maintain adequate intra-operative neuromonitoring"].

7.4 Each such breach was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. DAMAGES

8.1 Economic Damages

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur economic damages, including:

8.1.1 Past medical, hospital, surgical, pharmacy, rehabilitation, and related healthcare expenses;

8.1.2 Reasonably probable future medical, surgical, rehabilitation, and assistive-care expenses, including [LIFE-CARE-PLAN ITEMS WHERE KNOWN];

8.1.3 Lost wages, earnings, and benefits from the date of injury to the present;

8.1.4 Loss of future earning capacity;

8.1.5 Out-of-pocket expenses incidental to medical care, including travel, lodging, and assistive devices; and

8.1.6 Such other special damages as the evidence may establish.

8.2 Noneconomic Damages

8.2.1 Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, past and future physical pain, mental anguish, emotional distress, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of bodily function. No statutory cap limits the award of these damages. Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28.

8.3 Punitive Damages

8.3.1 Defendants' conduct, as described above, constitutes reckless disregard for the rights of others and/or intentional and malicious conduct within the meaning of 23 O.S. § 9.1, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in a separate proceeding pursuant to the bifurcated procedure required by § 9.1(D).

8.4 Total Damages

8.4.1 Plaintiff's total damages are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction in the United States district courts, the precise amount to be determined by the trier of fact pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2008(A)(2).

8.5 Several Liability

8.5.1 Pursuant to 23 O.S. § 15, each Defendant shall be liable only for the percentage of total damages allocated by the trier of fact to that Defendant's fault.

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in [his/her] favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally to the extent permitted by 23 O.S. § 15 and severally otherwise, as follows:

A. Compensatory economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction;

B. Compensatory noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

C. Punitive damages pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1;

D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as authorized by 12 O.S. § 727.1;

E. Costs of this action, including reasonable expert-witness fees as allowable by law;

F. Attorney's fees if and to the extent allowed by statute or contract;

G. An attorney's lien upon any judgment or settlement; and

H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

10. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Okla. Const. art. 2, § 19 and 12 O.S. § 556.

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Petition under 12 O.S. § 2015 to add additional claims, parties, theories of liability, and damages elements as discovery progresses, including but not limited to claims against currently unknown John Doe defendants and additional vicarious-liability or institutional-negligence theories.

12. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], OBA No. [_______]
[LAW FIRM]
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY], Oklahoma [ZIP]
Telephone: ([___]) [___-____]
Facsimile: ([___]) [___-____]
Email: [_______________]@[_______]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Dated: [__/__/____]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF [_____] )

I, [PLAINTIFF'S NAME], being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and state that I am the Plaintiff in the above-styled action; that I have read the foregoing Petition; and that the factual statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

[________________________________]
[PLAINTIFF'S NAME]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [__] day of [_______________], 20[__].

[________________________________]
Notary Public
My commission expires: [__/__/____]
Commission No.: [____________]

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this [__] day of [_______________], 20[__], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Medical Negligence was filed with the Clerk of the District Court of [_____] County, Oklahoma, and served upon each named Defendant by summons and a copy of this Petition pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004, addressed as set forth in the caption. Service upon counsel of record subsequently appearing will be effected by [hand delivery / U.S. Mail, postage prepaid / electronic service via the Oklahoma Court Information System (OCIS) / OneLegal] in accordance with 12 O.S. § 2005.

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], OBA No. [_______]

15. OKLAHOMA PRACTICE NOTES

15.1 Filing Mechanics

15.1.1 Caption. District-court pleadings in Oklahoma are titled "Petition," not "Complaint." The caption identifies the county and is captioned "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA." Major venues include Oklahoma County (Oklahoma City), Tulsa County, and Cleveland County (Norman).

15.1.2 Filing fee. As of 2026, the standard civil filing fee in Oklahoma district courts is set by 28 O.S. § 152; verify the current schedule with the local Court Clerk before filing. Indigent plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis upon affidavit under 12 O.S. § 922.

15.1.3 E-filing. Oklahoma courts use the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN) and OneLegal in many counties; consult local rule for mandatory e-filing.

15.2 Statute of Limitations

15.2.1 Two-year limitations. Medical malpractice claims arise under 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3) as actions for injury to the rights of another not arising out of contract.

15.2.2 Discovery rule. Limitations runs from when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its causal connection to medical care. Marshall v. Fenton, 1995 OK 66; Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88.

15.2.3 Minors. 12 O.S. § 96 tolls the period during minority; the action must be brought within one year after the eighteenth birthday but in no event less than two years from the injury date. For malpractice on a child under twelve, an outer seven-year repose applies.

15.2.4 Fraudulent concealment. Limitations is tolled during periods of active concealment by the defendant.

15.3 Affidavit / Certificate of Merit — Not Required

15.3.1 Oklahoma is among a small number of states in which the legislative attempt to require an expert affidavit at filing has been repeatedly struck down:

a. Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861 (early version of § 19);

b. Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, 302 P.3d 775 (re-enacted § 19);

c. John v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 2017 OK 81, 405 P.3d 681 (current § 19.1).

15.3.2 The current authoritative posture: the affidavit-of-merit requirement is unconstitutional and unenforceable. Plaintiffs file the Petition without any expert affidavit. (Many practitioners nevertheless complete an expert merit review pre-filing; that is a strategic choice, not a statutory requirement. See the companion certificate_of_merit.md template.)

15.4 Damages

15.4.1 No noneconomic cap. Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107, struck down the $350,000 noneconomic-damages cap at 23 O.S. § 61.2(B) as a special law violating Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46.

15.4.2 Several liability only. 23 O.S. § 15 abolishes joint and several liability in fault-based tort actions. Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of fault allocated by the trier of fact. The Court's verdict form should include comparative fault among defendants and any non-party tortfeasor.

15.4.3 Punitive damages — bifurcation and tiers. 23 O.S. § 9.1 establishes a mandatory bifurcated procedure and three categories:

a. Category I (reckless disregard) — capped at the greater of $100,000 or actual damages;

b. Category II (intentional and malicious) — capped at the greater of $500,000, twice actual damages, or the financial benefit derived from the act; and

c. Category III (intentional and malicious plus felony with grievous bodily harm) — no cap.

15.4.4 Collateral source rule. Oklahoma generally retains the collateral-source rule; medical-bill write-offs and insurance payments are not deducted. Confirm under current case law.

15.5 Apology Statute

15.5.1 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1H renders inadmissible any "statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct expressing apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion, or a general sense of benevolence" made by a healthcare provider to the patient or the patient's relatives that relate solely to discomfort, pain, suffering, injury, or death from an unanticipated outcome.

15.5.2 Exception. Statements of fault, fault-based admissions of negligence, and statements concerning the cause of the unanticipated outcome remain admissible if separable from the apology.

15.6 Pleading Mechanics

15.6.1 Notice pleading. 12 O.S. § 2008 mirrors the federal Rule 8 notice-pleading standard.

15.6.2 Ad damnum. 12 O.S. § 2008(A)(2) prohibits stating a specific dollar amount when damages exceed the federal diversity threshold; plead "in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction."

15.6.3 Particularity. 12 O.S. § 2009 requires fraud and mistake to be pleaded with particularity — relevant where fraudulent concealment is alleged to toll the statute of limitations.

15.6.4 Service. 12 O.S. § 2004 governs service; private process service is permitted under § 2004(C).

15.7 Government and Tribal Defendants

15.7.1 Governmental Tort Claims Act. Claims against state hospitals (e.g., OU Health, OSU Medical Center), county facilities, or municipal hospitals require a statutory notice of tort claim under 51 O.S. § 156 within one year of the loss, with a 180-day period for the governmental entity to respond before suit is filed. The two-year limitations period is shortened to one year from accrual for filing the notice. 51 O.S. § 156(B), § 157.

15.7.2 Tribal sovereign immunity. Care delivered through Indian Health Service or tribally operated facilities (e.g., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation health systems) implicates federal Indian-law principles, the Federal Tort Claims Act for IHS, and tribal immunity for tribally operated facilities. Specialized analysis required.

15.8 Pre-Filing Preservation

15.8.1 Records. Send a HIPAA-compliant authorization and a written request for the complete medical record, including the audit trail, image files, and provider-list reports. Many EHR systems preserve a back-end audit trail showing every chart access and edit; request that record explicitly.

15.8.2 Preservation letter. Send a litigation-hold letter to each provider, insurer, and corporate defendant requesting preservation of all paper and electronic records, voicemail, text messages, secure-chat platforms (e.g., Epic Secure Chat, Vocera), event-reporting (RL6, Datix), peer-review materials (subject to peer-review privilege), and ancillary device logs.

15.8.3 Peer review privilege. Oklahoma recognizes a peer-review privilege under 63 O.S. § 1-1709.1 for hospital quality-improvement and credentialing materials; underlying medical records are not privileged.

15.9 Common Defendant Strategies

15.9.1 Expect early motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) and dispositive motions on the discovery-rule trigger date.

15.9.2 Defendants may attempt to invoke § 19.1 despite John v. Saint Francis; respond with a brief citing 2017 OK 81 directly.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Statutes
• 12 O.S. § 95 — Limitations of actions (https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/os12.pdf)
• 12 O.S. § 96 — Tolling for minors and incapacitated persons
• 12 O.S. § 137 — Venue (natural persons)
• 12 O.S. § 139 — Venue (corporations)
• 12 O.S. § 2004 — Process; service
• 12 O.S. § 2008 — General rules of pleading
• 12 O.S. § 2009 — Pleading special matters
• 12 O.S. § 2012 — Defenses and objections
• 12 O.S. § 2015 — Amended and supplemental pleadings
• 12 O.S. § 727.1 — Post-judgment interest
• 23 O.S. § 9.1 — Punitive damages
• 23 O.S. § 15 — Several liability of joint tortfeasors
• 23 O.S. § 61.2 — Former noneconomic damages cap (struck down)
• 51 O.S. §§ 151–172 — Governmental Tort Claims Act
• 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1H — Medical apology statute

• 63 O.S. § 1-1709.1 — Peer-review privilege

• Cases

• Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107
• John v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 2017 OK 81, 405 P.3d 681
• Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, 302 P.3d 775
• Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861
• Marshall v. Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon, P.C., 1995 OK 66, 899 P.2d 621
• Reynolds v. Porter, 1988 OK 88, 760 P.2d 816
• Weldon v. Seminole Mun. Hosp., 1985 OK 94, 709 P.2d 1058
• Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165, 606 P.2d 554

• Boyanton v. Reif, 1990 OK 13, 798 P.2d 603

• Court Resources

• Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN): https://www.oscn.net/
• Oklahoma Statutes (Senate publication): https://oksenate.gov/
• Oklahoma Bar Association: https://www.okbar.org/

END OF TEMPLATE