Background
After Dr. Brad Stahlheber reported Dr. Dennis Rivero for an alleged wrong-site surgery, the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision brought disciplinary proceedings and later dismissed its complaint against Rivero. Rivero then sued Stahlheber in Tulsa County District Court for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and tortious interference with business relations.
Stahlheber filed an Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) motion to dismiss in December 2018. The district court held a February 4, 2019 hearing, received argument and evidence on the motion, and allowed limited discovery concerning it. But the court neither extended the hearing date nor ruled on the motion within 30 days. More than six years later, it granted the OCPA motion. Rivero appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed.
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the February 4 proceeding was a hearing on Stahlheber’s OCPA motion. The court’s decision to allow limited discovery did not itself extend the hearing date under the Act, because allowing discovery and extending a hearing are separate discretionary decisions.
Accordingly, the 30-day deadline to rule began on February 4, 2019. The motion was denied by operation of law on March 6, 2019, when the district court did not rule. The district court therefore lacked authority to grant that same OCPA motion on March 10, 2025. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, reversed the trial court’s dismissal order, and remanded for further proceedings without deciding the merits of the OCPA motion.
Key Takeaways
- An OCPA hearing occurs when the court formally takes up the dismissal motion and receives the parties’ arguments and evidence.
- Limited discovery does not automatically continue an OCPA dismissal hearing or toll the 30-day deadline to decide the motion.
- Once an OCPA motion is denied by operation of law, the moving party must timely pursue the authorized interlocutory appeal; a trial court cannot grant the lapsed motion years later.
Why It Matters
The decision enforces the OCPA’s expedited, mandatory procedural timetable. Courts and litigants must make any extension of an OCPA hearing explicit and comply with the Act’s outer deadlines.
The ruling does not prevent Stahlheber from challenging the evidentiary support for Rivero’s claims through summary judgment. It holds only that the OCPA’s accelerated dismissal mechanism was no longer available after the statutory deadline passed.