{"data":{"id":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-94","jurisdiction":"us-ok","citation":"Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 76-94","heading":"Prerequisite of prima facie showing in asbestos claims -","body":"Detailed occupational and exposure history - Evidence standards.\n\nA. No person shall have an asbestos claim placed on any active\n\ntrial roster in this state, or brought to trial in this state, or\n\nconduct discovery in an asbestos claim in this state, in the absence\n\nof a prima facie showing of asbestos-related malignancy or\n\nimpairment as shown by service on each defendant of the information\n\nlisted in either paragraph 1 or 2 of this subsection:\n\n1. A report by a physician who is board-certified in pulmonary\n\nmedicine, occupational medicine, internal medicine, oncology, or\n\npathology at the time of issuing the relevant medical report\n\nconcluding:\n\na. the exposed person has been diagnosed with\n\nmesothelioma or other asbestos-related malignancy,\n\nb. to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, exposure\n\nto asbestos was a proximate cause of the diagnosed\n\nmesothelioma or other asbestos-related malignancy,\n\naccompanied by a conclusion that the exposed person's\n\nmedical findings were not more probably the result of\n\nother causes revealed by the exposed person's\n\nemployment and medical history. A conclusion that the\n\nexposed person's physical impairment or impairments\n\nare \"consistent with\" or \"compatible with\"\n\nmesothelioma or other asbestos-related malignancy does\n\nnot meet the requirements of this section, and\n\nc. for malignant asbestos-related conditions other than\n\nmesothelioma, that the exposed person has an\n\nunderlying nonmalignant asbestos-related condition and\n\nthat at least fifteen (15) years have elapsed between\n\nthe date of first exposure to asbestos and the date of\n\ndiagnosis of the malignancy; or\n\n2. A report by a physician who is board-certified in pulmonary\n\nmedicine, internal medicine, occupational medicine, or pathology\n\nthat:\n\na. the exposed person has been diagnosed with a\n\nnonmalignant asbestos-related condition, and\n\nb. confirms that a physician actually treating or who\n\ntreated the exposed person, or who has or who had a\n\ndoctor-patient relationship with the exposed person or\n\na medical professional employed by and under the\n\ndirect supervision and control of such physician:\n\n(1) performed a physical examination of the exposed\n\nperson, or if the exposed person is deceased,\n\nreviewed available records relating to the\n\nexposed person's medical condition,\n\n(2) took an occupational and exposure history from\n\nthe exposed person or from a person knowledgeable\n\nabout the alleged exposure or exposures that form\n\nthe basis of the action, and\n\n(3) took a medical and smoking history that includes\n\na review of the exposed person's significant past\n\nand present medical problems relevant to the\n\nexposed person's impairment or disease,\n\nc. sets out sufficient details of the exposed person's\n\noccupational, exposure, medical, and smoking history\n\nto form the basis for a medical diagnosis of an\n\nasbestos-related condition and confirms that at least\n\nfifteen (15) years have elapsed between the exposed\n\nperson's first exposure to asbestos and the date of\n\ndiagnosis,\n\nd. confirms that the exposed person has a pathological\n\ndiagnosis of asbestosis graded 1(B) or higher under\n\nthe criteria published in \"Asbestos-Associated\n\nDiseases\", 106 Archives of Pathology and Laboratory\n\nMedicine 11, Appendix 3 (October 8, 1982), as amended\n\nfrom time to time, or\n\ne. confirms that the exposed person's chest x-ray shows\n\nbilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u) with\n\na profusion grading of 2/2 or higher on the ILO system\n\nof classification, or\n\nf. confirms that the exposed person has radiological\n\nevidence of asbestosis and/or pleural thickening\n\nshowing:\n\n(1) bilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u)\n\nwith a profusion grading of 1/1 or higher, or\n\nshows\n\nbilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u) with\n\na profusion grading of 2/2 or higher on the ILO system\n\nof classification, or\n\nf. confirms that the exposed person has radiological\n\nevidence of asbestosis and/or pleural thickening\n\nshowing:\n\n(1) bilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u)\n\nwith a profusion grading of 1/1 or higher, or\n\n(2) bilateral diffuse pleural thickening graded\n\nextent b2 or higher, including blunting of the\n\ncostophrenic angle, and\n\ng. (1) confirms that in cases described in subparagraph\n\nd or f of this paragraph, the exposed person has\n\nor had physical impairment rated at least Class 2\n\npursuant to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of\n\nPermanent Impairment (5th Edition) (dated\n\nNovember 2000) demonstrating:\n\n(a) forced vital capacity below the lower limit\n\nof normal and FEV1/FVC ratio (using actual\n\nvalues) at or above the lower limit of\n\nnormal, or\n\n(b) total lung capacity, by plethysmography or\n\ntimed gas dilution, below the lower limit of\n\nnormal, or\n\n(c) if the claimant's medical condition or\n\nprocess prevents the pulmonary function test\n\nfrom being performed or makes the results of\n\nsuch test an unreliable indicator of\n\nphysical impairment, a board-certified\n\nphysician in pulmonary medicine,\n\noccupational medicine, internal medicine,\n\noncology, or pathology, independent from the\n\nphysician providing the report required\n\nherein, must provide a report which states\n\nto a reasonable degree of medical certainty\n\nthat the claimant has a nonmalignant\n\nasbestos-related condition causing physical\n\nimpairment equivalent to subdivision (a) or\n\n(b) of this division and states the reasons\n\nwhy the pulmonary function test would be an\n\nunreliable indicator of physical impairment.\n\n(2) Alternatively and not to be used in conjunction\n\nwith subdivision (c) of division (1) of this\n\nsubparagraph, if an exposed person's medical\n\nconditions or processes prevent a physician from\n\nbeing able to diagnose or evaluate that exposed\n\nperson sufficiently to make a determination as to\n\nwhether that exposed person meets the\n\nrequirements of subparagraph f of this paragraph,\n\nthe claimant may serve on each defendant a report\n\nby a physician who is board-certified in\n\npulmonary medicine, occupational medicine,\n\ninternal medicine, oncology, or pathology at the\n\ntime the report was made that:\n\n(a) verifies that the physician has or had a\n\ndoctor-patient relationship with the exposed\n\nperson, and\n\n(b) verifies that the exposed person has\n\nasbestos-related pulmonary impairment as\n\ndemonstrated by pulmonary function testing\n\nshowing:\n\n(i) forced vital capacity below the lower\n\nlimit of normal and total lung\n\ncapacity, by plethysmography, below the\n\nlower limit of normal, or\n\n(ii) forced vital capacity below the lower\n\nlimit of normal and FEV1/FVC ratio\n\n(using actual values) at or above the\n\nlower limit of normal, and\nsed person has\n\nasbestos-related pulmonary impairment as\n\ndemonstrated by pulmonary function testing\n\nshowing:\n\n(i) forced vital capacity below the lower\n\nlimit of normal and total lung\n\ncapacity, by plethysmography, below the\n\nlower limit of normal, or\n\n(ii) forced vital capacity below the lower\n\nlimit of normal and FEV1/FVC ratio\n\n(using actual values) at or above the\n\nlower limit of normal, and\n\n(c) verifies that the exposed person has a chest\n\nx-ray and computed tomography scan or high-\n\nresolution computed tomography scan read by\n\nthe physician or a physician who is board-\n\ncertified in pulmonary medicine,\n\noccupational medicine, internal medicine,\n\noncology, pathology, or radiology showing\n\neither bilateral pleural disease or\n\nbilateral parenchymal disease diagnosed and\n\nreported as being a consequence of asbestos\n\nexposure,\n\nh. confirms that the physician has concluded that the\n\nexposed person's medical findings and impairment were\n\nnot more probably the result of causes other than\n\nasbestos exposure as revealed by the exposed person's\n\noccupational, exposure, medical, and smoking history,\n\nand\n\ni. is accompanied by the relevant radiologist's reports,\n\npulmonary function tests, including printouts of all\n\ndata, flow volume loops, and other information to the\n\nextent such has been performed demonstrating\n\ncompliance with the equipment, quality,\n\ninterpretation, and reporting standards set out in the\n\nAsbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, lung volume\n\ntests, diagnostic imaging of the chest, pathology\n\nreports, or other testing reviewed by the physician in\n\nreaching the physician's conclusions. Upon request,\n\nthe relevant computed tomography scans and/or chest x-\n\nrays will be made available for review.\n\nB. The detailed occupational and exposure history required\n\nherein must describe:\n\n1. The exposed person's principal employments where it was\n\nlikely there was exposure to airborne contaminants (including\n\nasbestos, silica, and other disease-causing dusts, mists, fumes, and\n\nairborne contaminants) that can cause pulmonary injury; and\n\n2. Identification of the general nature, duration, and\n\nfrequency of the exposed person's exposure to airborne contaminants,\n\nincluding asbestos and other dusts that can cause pulmonary injury.\n\nC. All evidence and reports used in presenting the prima facie\n\nshowing required in this section, including pulmonary function\n\ntesting and diffusing studies, if any:\n\n1. Must comply with the technical recommendations for\n\nexaminations, testing procedures, quality assurance, quality\n\ncontrols, and equipment in the AMA's Guidelines to the Evaluation of\n\nPermanent Impairment and the most current version of the Official\n\nStatements of the American Thoracic Society regarding lung function\n\ntesting. Testing performed in a hospital or other medical facility\n\nthat is fully licensed and accredited by all appropriate regulatory\n\nbodies in the state in which the facility is located is presumed to\n\nmeet the requirements of this act. This presumption may be rebutted\n\nby evidence demonstrating that the accreditation or licensing of the\n\nhospital or other medical facility has lapsed, or providing specific\n\nfacts demonstrating that the technical recommendations for\n\nexaminations, testing procedures, quality assurance, quality\n\ncontrol, and equipment have not been followed;\n\n2. Must not be obtained through testing or examinations that\n\nviolate any applicable law, regulation, licensing requirement, or\n\nmedical code of practice;\n\n3. Must not be obtained under the condition that the exposed\n\nperson retains legal services in exchange for the examination,\n\ntesting, or screening;\n\n4. Shall not result in any presumption at trial that the\n\nexposed person is impaired by an asbestos or silica-related\n\ncondition; and\n\n5. Shall not be conclusive as to the liability of any\n\ndefendant.\n\nD. The conclusion that a prima facie showing has been made is\n\nnot admissible at trial.","path":["OK Code","Title 76"],"source_url":"https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os76.pdf","current_through":"2026-08-14","vintage":"open-us-law v2026.08, retrieved 2026-09-14","retrieved_at":"2026-09-14T18:32:36Z","sha256":"3fdbae24ec12f2c90394b416899691e588503e303af173daea13cf918dce16c1","source_id":"us-ok","stale":false,"prev":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-93","next":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-95"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}