If you can't say anything nice . . .

Have you read the most recent decision released by the Oklahoma Supreme Court? If not, take a look at GOMES v. HAMEED, 2008 OK 3.

The Court holds that "1) the absence of a contractual relationship with an emergency room patient entitles a doctor to statutory immunity from claims of negligence pursuant to The Good Samaritan Act . . .; and 2) an agreement not to sue negotiated on behalf of a minor and/or incapacitated person requires court approval to be enforceable." Id. at 0.

While I agree (partially) with the reasoning and outcome of the first holding, I am struggling to get my head around the second holding. I'm by far not the foremost contracts law expert, but the holding seems to spit in the face of contracts doctrine 101. Isn't the point of determining meaning the meaning of a contract an examination of the party's intent? Remember Lucy v. Zehmer? I think the debate is over when the doctors were going to be sued, in the first trial, or in the second.

From my view, it seems Justice Opala is right on:

"The contract tendered in this case as the basis of a physician's plea in bar based on her contractual immunity deals solely with a tort lawyer's trial strategy. By that strategy immunity from suit was allegedly extended to a physician in exchange for her favorable testimony in a minor's tort case against a hospital. I would not restrict an advocate's strategy choices by injecting the judiciary into a field in which it lacks the same quantum of expertise as that possessed by a practitioner."

But that's just the pro-plaintiff coming out in me, perhaps you favor Justice Taylor's reading:

I would enforce the agreement not to sue. This agreement was negotiated by the plaintiff's counsel in order to secure the physicians' assistance in the plaintiff's suit against the hospital. The plaintiff accepted all benefits of that agreement. The physicians acted in reliance upon the agreement.

I'd like to know what you think, and whether I'm off the boat.

In another note, why didn't the resident doctor claim the privilege granted by Anderson v. Eichner and The Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act?