Tulsa, OK Criminal Defense & Personal Injury Lawyer 918-582-6464
  • Overview
  • Practice Areas
  • Attorney Profile
  • Cases
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact

Blog

Oklahoma’s No Pay No Play Statute May be Unconstitutional

In November 2011 Oklahoma enacted a statute, commonly called the “no play no pay” law, as part of so called tort reform that essentially says if a person is a victim in a car accident and at the time of the automobile accident the victim, or the person that is NOT at fault, does not have automobile insurance then the victim cannot recover for pain and suffering damages in court. The statute citation is Title 47 O.S. Sec. 47-116. There are several exceptions to the no pay no play law. If a person had been covered by car insurance previous to the car wreck and had not received a notice of cancellation at least 30 days prior to the car wreck then the prohibition of recovering pain and suffering is not applicable. If the person that was at fault was intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol and is then convicted or pleads guilty or no contest then the uninsured victim is able to recover for pain and suffering. The statute does not apply if the motorist who caused the accident intentionally caused the accident, left the scene of the accident or at the time of the accident, was acting in furtherance of the commission of a felony. There are several other exceptions that apply to the no pay no play statute.

The constitutionality of the statute is a serious question in the State of Oklahoma. Similar statutes to Oklahoma’s no pay no play statute have been found to be constitutional in Louisiana’s and New Jersey’s state courts under those states’ Constitutions and the United States Constitution. The state courts there found that the no pay no play statute did not violate equal protection, due process and excessive fines constitutional provisions. In those states their constitutions have similar provisions to the United States Constitution, which has been turned into swiss cheesed with exceptions by justices of both ideological camps. Fortunately for the citizens of Oklahoma their founding fathers had the fore-sight, largely because Oklahoma was founded later in the history of the U.S., 4th state to be precise, to make sure that their citizens rights were not degraded by exceptions carved out by the courts and legislatures. Particularly, Oklahoma’s constitution has two provisions that are likely offended by the no pay no play statute, Article 5 § 46 and Article 2 § 9.

Article 5 § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution reads in relevant part;

Local and special laws on certain subjects prohibited.

The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing:

Regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in judicial proceedings or inquiry before the courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators, or other tribunals, or providing or changing the methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcement of judgments or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate;

The no pay no play statute offends the above provision of “Regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in judicial proceedings or inquiry before the courts” by not allowing those that have no car insurance full access to the court. Essentially Oklah0ma’s founding fathers wanted the courts to be equal and if some was to be punished for a violation of the law do it in a manner that does not violate people’s fundamental rights to access to courts. If a person does not have insurance then fine them or put them in jail but don’t pick out people that have been injured and deprive them of their rights to the courts. This law is particularly heinous because the more a victim of a car accident is in pain and suffers the more they are punished.

The other clause of the Oklahoma Constitution that the no pay no play statute offends is Article 2, § 6 which provides as follows;

Courts of justice open – Remedies for wrongs – Sale, denial or delay.

The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.

The way that the no pay no play law offends the above provision is clear. Access to the court for a remedy for pain and suffering is deprived.

Attorney Joe Norwood has filed a declaratory judgment asking that a Court in Tulsa County find the no pay no play statute unconstitutional. Please check back for the Courts ruling.

 

DUI Amended to Improper Lane Change in Tulsa Oklahoma

Lawyer Norwood’s client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in a Tulsa Oklahoma Court.  After filing several winning motions in limine where the governments case was significantly impaired and the prosecutor realized that Attorney Norwood’s client would likely get a not guilty verdict the prosecution offered to amend the charge to improper lane change. Among the reasons that Attorney Norwood’s client would have likely recieved a not guilty is that the officer failed to perform two of the three regularly administered standardized field sobriety tests.  In addition there was no documentation by the police officer in the police report that the client exhibited any signs of impaired physical motor skills.  Generally an intoxicated person exhibits signs of intoxication through impaired physical motor movements.  For example when a person that is under suspicion for DUI steps out of the car for an officer to begin the standardized field sobriety tests the subject sometimes stumbles or leans on the car.  All police officers look for this and view it as a sign of intoxication.  Since the officer did not document any motor skill impairments this was a sign that the client was not too intoxicated to drive.  Additionally the officer did not properly perform the horizontal gaze and nystagmus (HGN) test.  The prosecutor figured this out and offered to amend the DUI to improper lane change.   Client plead no contest to the amended improper lane change and went home a happy driving under the influence (DUI) free person.

Youthful Offender / Juvenile Burglary Victory in Tulsa – Septmeber 2012

R.E. was 16 year old when he was charged as an adult with first degree burglary in Tulsa County District Court. He and his family retained Lawyer Joseph Norwood as his counsel. Attorney Norwood went to work trying to have R.E. certified as a juvenile instead of an adult. If R.E. were certified as a juvenile his case would be in juvenile court instead of in district court where adults have their cases heard. Juvenile court offers the benefits of non-public records and more access to resources for rehabilitation instead of the punishment focus that district court, or adult court, has. Attorney Norwood employed the services of a psychiatrist to evaluate R.E.’s potential for success in the juvenile system and filed several motions for R.E.’s benefit. After the Court held several hearings it decided that R.E.’s case should be in the juvenile system, dismissed the case in district court and the records of the district court proceeding will be expunged.

 

Automobile Accident / Car Wreck wins for Attorney Norwood’s Clients

February 2012 – Automobile Accident / Car Wreck settlement for $25,000

J.S. was sideswiped by a semi-truck while driving on U.S. 244 in Tulsa Oklahoma.  After J.S. treated at a chiropractor for two months for back and neck strain / sprains Lawyer Norwood negotiated a $25,000 semi-truck accident settlement that put $11,000 in J.S.’s pocket after all fees and medical bills were paid.

August 2012 – Automobile Accident / Car Wreck settlement for $50,000

A.P and B.P., two and three years old, were riding unrestrained in the back of their fathers SUV / automobile when the car hydroplaned and sent them tumbling around in the back of the truck.  B.P. sustained three fractured discs in his back.  At the conclusion of negotiations the insurance company agreed to settle both car crash cases for a total of personal injury settlement of $50,000.  Now Attorney Norwood is moving to have the UM (uninsured / under insured motorist) which covered the children pay up for this car wreck as well.

Automobile Accident / Car Wreck wins for Lawyer Norwood’s Clients

August 2010 – Automobile Accident / Car Wreck Settlement for $45,000 in Tulsa County District Court

D.J. had a tire company truck turn left in front of her car while she was traveling 40 mph down 71st St in Tulsa.  She t-boned the truck which knocked her silly, and  also injured her wrist.  D.J. had her children with her and her minivan was totaled.  The insurance company was not willing to settle, claiming that she was at fault.  Lawyer Norwood filed suit against the tire company and started gathering all the evidence.  Through the litigation process it was discovered that the driver of the tire company’s truck had a significant substance abuse problem and was fired from the tire company for testing positive for cocaine.  The tire company truck driver eventually went to prison for possession of controlled drug and the insurance company for the tire truck company offered $45,000 as a car accident settlement.  This put $15,000 in D.J.’s pocket after all medical bills and fees were paid.

2008 – Tahlequah OK Automobile Accident / Car Wreck Settlement for $35,000

D.S. was rear-ended by a cement mixing truck when she was six months pregnant causing multiple injuries including an injury to her wrist that required surgery. The insurance company for the cement truck attempted to minimize the injuries that were sustained by D.S. and claimed that some of the treatment that she received was not necessary. After intensive negotiations the insurance company settled the case for a $35,000 as a truck accident settlement, which covered all of her medical bills and put additional money in her pocket to the tune of $15,000.

DUI wins for Lawyer Norwood’s Clients 2009 and Before

December 2009 Tulsa County District Court

J.H. was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in the District Court of Tulsa County.  The state was being unreasonable, as usual, so lawyer Norwood set the case for trial.  Through attorney Norwood’s investigation he was able to determine that the sheriff who arrested J.H. was on vacation when the trial was set.  This means that the state would not be able to have their witnesses at trial.  Lawyer Norwood insisted on the trial going and strenuously objected to any passes so the state had to tell the judge that they were not ready for trial and the DUI case was dismissed.

April 2009 Tulsa County District Court

H.S. was charged with felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) with a great bodily injury accident resulting.  H.S. was leaving a popular restaurant/bar area in the greater Tulsa and Jenks area after having had a few drinks with family and friends when she was arrested for the DUI.  The DUI accident occurred after dark when H.S. was turning left and failed to see a motorcycle.  The rider of the motorcycle received significant injuries.  H.S. made the mistake of initially retaining an attorney that did not fight as hard as Joseph Norwood.  After the other attorney waived many of H.S.’s rights she started to figure out that her attorney was not doing a good job and she retained Joseph Norwood.  Lawyer Joseph Norwood entered the case, did an investigation, did research on the applicable law and filed several motions with the Tulsa County District Court to get H.S.’s rights back.  Among the significant errors that H.S.’s prior lawyer made was their failure to make sure the officers that arrested H.S. and administered her breathalyzer for the DUI did their jobs properly.  Attorney Norwood was able to discover that the blood alcohol test was administered outside of the time that is statutorily permitted for a resulting blood alcohol content reading to be admitted into court.  Lawyer Norwood also asked the court to find that H.S.’s prior attorney was ineffective and incompetent and unable to establish the DUI facts of the client’s case.  During that hearing attorney Norwood was able to establish that the blood alcohol test was faulty.  The state of Oklahoma, through the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office figured out that the case was going south for them and offered H.S. a stellar deal where she would be on a very short unsupervised deferred probation.  H.S. having been facing prison time before jumped on the deal.  The deferred probation time passed quickly and the case was dismissed and expunged off H.S.’s record.

March 2008 Bixby Municipal Court

S.S. was charged with an Oklahoma DUI. After motions and a hearing Joseph Norwood was able to convince the Judge to dismiss the case based on a lack of probable cause for the pull over and lack of jurisdiction of the arresting officers.

Youthful Offender Cases

Among the many types of criminal defense matters I have handled are youthful offender cases.  Among the criminal defense / youthful offender cases I have handled are several first degree murder cases.  This link is to an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals criminal defense / youthful offender case that I was very successful on. http://www.state.ok.us/~oids/coca/MH.pdf M.H. was charged with first degree murder and the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office was looking to try and sentence M.H., a 14 year old minor as an adult. 

Lawyer Joseph Norwood was able to convince a Tulsa County Judge to certify M.H. as a youthful offender after a hearing where Attorney Joseph Norwood presented four witnesses in her defense. The four witnesses were physiological experts that all testified that M.H. should be classified as a youthful offender for punishment purposes. If M.H. was found to not qualify as a youthful offender she would be facing punishment of life, where M.H. would have to actually do at least 38 years, or life without parole, where M.H. would never be released from prison.

These are the only punishment options that M.H. would have if convicted of first degree murder and not found to be eligible as a youthful offender. Since her murder defense team  Thomas Mortensen and I were able to have M.H. certified as a youthful offender she will now be allowed to walk free by the time she is 20 years old.

The Tulsa County D.A.’s office appealed the Judge’s ruling in favor of our client, M.H., to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest Court in the State of Oklahoma for criminal cases. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the Tulsa County Judge that ruled for youthful offender status for M.H. was correct and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the Tulsa County Special Judges ruling in favor of our client. M.H. will now walk free when she is 20 years old.

Product Liability Case Against Abbott Labs for Humira

Humira Side effects product liability law suit against Abbott Laboratories is being handled by Joe Norwood, .  It has been shown that Humira causes lymphoma cancers, particularly rare lymphoma cancers like hepatosplenic t-cell lymphoma cancer.  Humira is a tumor necrosis factor, TNF, blocker.  The Federal Drug Administration has recently ordered Abbott Laboratories to place a warning on Humira packaging warning consumers on the risks associated with taking Humira.

In addition to hepatosplenic t-cell lymphoma cancer it has been shown that Humira causes infections like histoplasmosis.  That Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has also ordered warnings to Abbott Laboratories on these infections.  The consumers most likely to be exposed to infection are in the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys.  Additionally consumers that have been prescribed methotrexate, an immune-suppressant drug, are at increased risk. To join this class action product liability law suit please contact Joe Norwood at 918-582-6464 right now.

Concerns have also surfaced that Humira may cause nerve damage.

Humira is generally prescribed for arthritis and less often for psoriasis.

 
©2013 Norwood Law Firm, PC All rights reserved. Site Map 1717 S. Cheyenne Tulsa, OK 74119   |   918.582.6464 facebookRSS