Balfour v. Nelson

I concur with the result of the majority opinion insofar as it finds the physician’s hen is vahd and protects her interest in the personal injury settlement proceeds. J write separately to point out that 42 O.S.1991 § 46(D) conflicts with the statutory physician’s hen scheme enacted by the legislature, and results in such confusion that it defeats the purpose of the statute. It is impossible to reach any construction which gives effect to the provisions of § 46(D) without doing violence to the intent of the hen statute.1

It is with good reason that the majority opinion strains with the effort…