This week's Journal Record has an article concerning Rep. Schwarz's effort in refiling House Bill 1725. An identical bill was vetoed last year.
The proposed bill requires Oklahoma plaintiffs (i.e. personal injury or medical malpractice victims) filing a professional negligence lawsuit to attach to the petition a "certificate of merit" affidavit. The affidavit is to attest that the lawsuit has been reviewed by a qualified expert and that the case does in fact have merit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 2006 because it applied solely to medical professionals. The law was found unconstitutional because it singled out one kind of profession for special treatment. In addition, the Court "deemed the certificates of merit an unconstitutional barrier to the courts - obtaining such an opinion could cost as much as $12,000 and create other legal problems." [emphasis added]. The article also states an obvious truth:
All this does is drive up the cost of litigation and make it harder for Oklahoma plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit. Any half-brained lawyer won't bring a lawsuit that they think lacks merit - for the simple fact that they will lose time and money.
The proposed bill requires Oklahoma plaintiffs (i.e. personal injury or medical malpractice victims) filing a professional negligence lawsuit to attach to the petition a "certificate of merit" affidavit. The affidavit is to attest that the lawsuit has been reviewed by a qualified expert and that the case does in fact have merit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 2006 because it applied solely to medical professionals. The law was found unconstitutional because it singled out one kind of profession for special treatment. In addition, the Court "deemed the certificates of merit an unconstitutional barrier to the courts - obtaining such an opinion could cost as much as $12,000 and create other legal problems." [emphasis added]. The article also states an obvious truth:
Some cases are so obvious they don't require the testimony of an expert witness, yet expert testimony would be required under the law the court struck down.So why does Schwarz find it necessary to refile an identical bill?
All this does is drive up the cost of litigation and make it harder for Oklahoma plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit. Any half-brained lawyer won't bring a lawsuit that they think lacks merit - for the simple fact that they will lose time and money.
