 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital9/22/1993
THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED, THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL ORDER IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIMS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THIS PRONOUNCEMENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: OPALA, Justice.
The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for failure to state a cause of action? We answer in the affirmative.
I
THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
Judy Dyke [Dyke], a nurse employed by defendant St. Francis Hospital [Hospital], alleged that before October 1986 she was exposed to hepatitis in the course of her employment. The hospital directed her to the employee health department, where she came under the care of the defendant doctors, Robert G. Tompkins, Joe LeBlanc, George B. Caldwell, Stanley N. Schwartz and Robert Jordan [Doctors]. These physicians treated Dyke with a series of three vaccines (Heptavax-B). After receiving two more shots of Heptavax-B, Dyke became seriously ill with Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Dyke and her husband brought a malpractice action against the doctors and hospital on March 30, 1990. Dyke alleged that the physicians were "associated with" the employee health department and had been "designated by" the hospital to administer medical care to the hospital's employees. According to Dyke, the defendant doctors were "agents, servants and employees" of the hospital and were "acting within the scope of their agency, service and employment" at "all times material" to the lawsuit.
The doctors and the hospital separately moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. They advanced lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the exclusivity of Oklahoma's compensation remedy. The trial court took the case under advisement and later dismissed the suit against the hospital and the doctors.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal order. It held the "dual persona" doctrine available to provide Dyke with a tort remedy against the hospital and the named physicians. The appellate court reasoned that when the hospital - acting through the doctors - sought to treat Dyke for her exposure to hepatitis, it assumed obligations unrelated to those of the employer, which in turn gave rise to distinct duties. The opinion concludes that Dyke could prove a set of facts that would bring her claim within the dual persona doctrine and would entitle her to tort recovery against the doctors.
We hold that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to state a claim both against the doctors and the hospital. Since the judgment roll of Dyke's compensation claim was not before the district court when it considered the dismissal motions, the nisi prius court had no opportunity to assess the defendants' claim to immunity based either on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act or on the law's bar against relitigation of an adjudged compensation claim as a tort remedy. We granted certiorari because, even if the dual persona doctrine were viable in Oklahoma, the record in this case gives no support to its application.
II
DYKE'S PETITION STATES A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS
The applicable test for appraising the sufficiency of a pleading challenged for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted teaches that no dismissal may be effected unless it should appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle her to relief. Under our
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|