Oklahoma Code § 12-19.1

Title 12. Civil Procedure: Affidavit of consultation with qualified expert -
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this section
Extension - Exemption.
A.  1.  In any civil action for negligence wherein the plaintiff
shall be required to present the testimony of an expert witness to
establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such
breach of duty resulted in harm to the plaintiff, except as provided
in subsection B of this section, the plaintiff shall attach to the
petition an affidavit attesting that:
a. the plaintiff has consulted and reviewed the facts of
the claim with a qualified expert,
b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a
qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff
and includes the determination of the expert that,
based upon a review of the available material
including, but not limited to, applicable records,
facts or other relevant material, a reasonable
interpretation of the facts supports a finding that
the acts or omissions of the defendant against whom
the action is brought constituted negligence, and
c. on the basis of the review and consultation of the
qualified expert, the plaintiff has concluded that the
claim is meritorious and based on good cause.
2.  If the civil action for negligence is filed:

a. without an affidavit being attached to the petition,
as required in paragraph 1 of this subsection, and
b. no extension of time is subsequently granted by the
court, pursuant to subsection B of this section,
the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the action
without prejudice to its refiling.
3.  The written opinion from the qualified expert shall state
the acts or omissions of the defendant or defendants that the expert
then believes constituted negligence and shall include reasons
explaining why the acts or omissions constituted negligence.  The
written opinion from the qualified expert shall not be admissible at
trial for any purpose nor shall any inquiry be permitted with regard
to the written opinion for any purpose either in discovery or at
trial.
B.  1.  The court may, upon application of the plaintiff for
good cause shown, grant the plaintiff an extension of time, not
exceeding ninety (90) days after the date the petition is filed,
except for good cause shown, to file in the action an affidavit
attesting that the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a
qualified expert as described in paragraph 1 of subsection A of this
section.
2.  If on the expiration of an extension period described in
paragraph 1 of this subsection, the plaintiff has failed to file in
the action an affidavit as described above, the court shall, upon
motion of the defendant, unless good cause is shown for such
failure, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling.  If
good cause is shown, the resulting extension shall in no event
exceed sixty (60) days.
C.  1.  Upon written request of any defendant in a civil action
for negligence, the plaintiff shall, within ten (10) business days
after receipt of such request, provide the defendant with:
a. a copy of the written opinion of a qualified expert
mentioned in an affidavit filed pursuant to subsection
A or B of this section, and
b. an authorization from the plaintiff in a form that
complies with applicable state and federal laws,
including the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, for the release of any and
all relevant records related to the plaintiff for a
period commencing five (5) years prior to the incident
that is at issue in the civil action for negligence.
2.  If the plaintiff fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this
subsection, the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, unless
good cause is shown for such failure, dismiss the action without
prejudice to its refiling.
D.  A plaintiff in a civil action for negligence may claim an
exemption to the provisions of this section based on indigency

pursuant to the qualification rules established as set forth in
Section 4 of this act.
Added by Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 12, § 2.
NOTE:  Text formerly resided under repealed Title 12, § 19, which
was derived from Laws 2009, c. 228, § 2, which was held
unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of
Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789
(Okla. 2013).

‹ Prev All Oklahoma sections Next ›


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.