Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 18, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
119,967 – Mark Alfano, Executor of the Estate of Michael A. Hammer, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Speedsportz, LLC and John Reaves, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. This case is the result of an earlier ruling of this Court reversing the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment regarding the ownership of a 1927 Bentley (the Bentley) in Appeal No. 116,837. The ownership of the Bentley was litigated and the jury returned a verdict finding there was no joint venture between the parties, and that Michael A. Hammer (Hammer) is the owner of the Bentley and entitled to possession. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the district court entered judgment in favor of Hammer. The district court held a hearing pertaining to attorney fees and awarded Hammer attorney fees. Speedsportz appeals these orders. The cases were consolidated on appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. October 17, 2023
Division II
120,678 – Kassi Harrison and Clayton Harrison, individually and as Parents and next friend of B.H., a minor Child; and Heritage Trust Company, Kassi Harrison and Clayton Harrison, as Co-Guardians of the property of B.H., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Ajay Kumar Verma, M.D.; Petiatrix Medical Group of Oklahoma, P.C., an Oklahoma corporation; Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., a Florida corporation; Mednax Services, Inc., a Florida corporation; Misty L. Wayman, M.D., an individual; and Center for Women’s Health, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants, and Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Health Center, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for new trial in which they sought review of the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Health Center, an Oklahoma corporation. Mercy’s motion for summary judgment is based on the assertions that Plaintiffs only brought a direct negligence claim against other Defendants (with whom they have now settled), and that Mercy contractually relinquished all responsibility over the staffing of its neonatal intensive care unit. However, Plaintiffs have brought a direct negligence theory of recovery against Mercy, and, in the agreement between Mercy and certain other Defendants, Mercy does not contractually relinquish all authority related to staffing. Therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order denying the motion for new trial, and we remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and HIXON, J., dissents. October 12, 2023
Division III
Division IV