GlobeLife&Acc. Ins. Co. v. OklahomaTaxComm'n, 1996 OK 39, ¶ 15, 913 P.2d 1322 ; Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 1983 OK 76, ¶ 9, 677 P.2d 648.GlobeLife&Acc.
If section 1089(a) gives military physicians total immunity, section 1089(f)'s indemnification provisions are virtually meaningless. See Newman v. Soballe, 871 F.2d 969, 974 (11th Cir. 1989); Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 651 (Okla. 1983); cf. Jackson v. Kelly, 557 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1977) (en banc). We must interpret section 1089 as a whole and try to give full effect to all of its subsections.
(Tr. III, 643). We believe the cases of Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983), and Radford-Shelton and Associates Dental Laboratory, Inc. v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., 569 P.2d 506 (Okla.Ct.App. 1976) (published by order of Okla.Ct.App.), are persuasive. In Anderson the Oklahoma Supreme Court found no error in the manner in which the trial court applied § 832(H).
The exclusion cannot be interpreted to apply only to transactions between parties in the oil and gas industry, because such an interpretation would render the exclusion meaningless, mere surplus language. See Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 651 (Okla. 1983) ("Statutes must be construed to give meaning to each portion thereof . . ."). Cf. Cowart v. Piper Air-craft Corp., 665 P.2d 315, 317 (Okla. 1983) ("It is presumed that each portion . . . was intended to be operative and not surplus language.").
To preserve that error for review here, Capshaw must have excepted to the blank verdict form at the pre-submission stage of the case, i.e., simultaneously with exceptions to jury instructions." Id. See also Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 1983 OK 76, ¶ 12, 677 P.2d 648, 652 (Absent proper objections, review on appeal is limited to erroneous statements of fundamental law appearing on the face of the instructions given).
In its petition for certiorari, Southwestern urges review and withdrawal of the appellate court's opinion for it disregards the unambiguous language of § 832, and is inconsistent with settled precedent, See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. Western Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989) and Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983). Finally, Southwestern contends that the summary decision creates an interdivisional conflict among opinions of the courts of appeals.
1981)." Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 652 (Okla. 1983); see also, Croy v. Bacon Transport Co., 604 P.2d 136 (Okla. 1979); Taylor v. Scott, 167 Okla. 588, 32 P.2d 48 (1934). Under these standards, we have reviewed the record and the Trial Court's instructions to the jury.
Such a "solution" is no solution at all. In fact, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okl. 1983) retained jurisdiction over a malpractice suit where the military physician committed malpractice while on civilian assignment. The court specifically held "that a suit against a military physician individually is proper where the facts disclose the case is brought under the conditions described in [subsection (f)]. . . . Inasmuch as the suit may be brought against the physician individually, the action may properly be brought against the appellant in state court."
Consequently, the district court in this case had an affirmative duty to reduce plaintiff's tort judgment by the settlement obtained from the joint tortfeasor, Canadian Valley, rather than permit the jury to do this. Cf. Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 653 (Okla. 1983) ("The trial judge properly deducted the amount of settlement from the verdict before arriving at the judgment amount.") II
Plaintiff cites several other cases in support of her contention that Captain Moore was not acting within the scope of his federal employment at the time of the alleged incident. See Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Ok. 1983); Newman v. Soballe, supra; Burchfield v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 516 F. Supp. 1301 (D.Col. 1981); and Bass v. Parsons, 577 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.W.V. 1984). All of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith, and use the same or similar rationale found in Afonso, detailing the legislative history of the Gonzalez Act.