WATT, Justice:
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Debra Paul Nelson and her two children, appellees, were injured in an automobile accident and sought medical treatment from appellant, Debora K. Balfour, D.C. Nelson related that she was asserting claims against another party to recover for their injuries and that she had insufficient funds to pay for treatment at that time. The parties entered into a contract whereby Nelson agreed to pay for medical services either when she settled the personal injury claims or within three months after treatments ceased, whichever occurred first. Dr. Balfour began treating appellees in July of 1989.
Pursuant to 42 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 46, Dr. Balfour filed various lien statements covering her services to appellees. For Debra Nelson, hen statements were filed on March 28, 1990, in the amount of $3,994.60 and on July 9, 1990, in the amount of $5,057.40. For Jerome Phillips, hen statements were filed on August 22,1989 in the amount of $310.00 and on October 16, 1989, in the amount of $705.00. For Jeremy Phillips, hen statements were filed on August 2, 1989, in the [918]*918amount of $474.00 and on October 16, 1989, in the amount of $610.00. Each of the second lien statements were cumulative, incorporating amounts and services included in the first filings. Treatment on each patient ceased, respectively, after the filing of a second lien statement. Appellant never received any payment for her services nor did she ever seek to enforce any of the above liens.
Upon discovering that appellees were about to settle their personal injury claims, appellant filed a third lien statement for each patient. The statements, all filed on October 26, 1992, were for the same services and in the identical amounts claimed in the second lien filings. Appellees thereafter settled their personal injury claims.1 On October 28, 1992, appellant filed suit to foreclose her liens and sought pre-judgment garnishment of the appellees’ settlement proceeds.
The Honorable Karen Hibbs, Special District Judge, Grady County, sustained appellant’s motion for summary judgment for all amounts due, but denied her lien claims against the settlement proceeds. The court held that appellant’s foreclosure action failed because she did not file it within one year of the filing of the lien statements, and that the October 26, 1992, refilings for the same services and amounts did not reactivate the extinguished liens. Based upon similar reasoning, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. This Court granted appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari on July 11, 1994.
ISSUE
The sole issue presented is whether a doctor, who filed a physician’s lien statement against the personal injury settlement proceeds of her patient pursuant to 42 O.S.1991 § 46 but did not seek to enforce it within one year, can reestablish a lien claim against such proceeds by filing the same lien statement before the personal injury claim settled and before the statute of limitations ran on the underlying medical services contract. We answer this question in the affirmative.
DISCUSSION
Title 42 O.S.1991 § 462 provides physicians with a statutory method for obtaining a lien against the proceeds of a patient’s personal injury claim where the patient’s injuries were caused by another. The statute requires-that the doctor file a detañed statement with the appropriate county clerk and send certified copies of the statement to the effected parties. Section 46 does not set forth an arithmetical time limit within which a lien must be filed3, mandating only that the filing and notice requirements be met “before the payment of any monies to the injured person, his attorney, or legal representative as compensation for such injuries or death.” 42 O.S.1991 § 46(C). In the present case, the doctor followed the proper procedure for filing each of her lien statements and all were filed before appellees received any settlement proceeds.
The present dispute arises from the interpretation of § 46(D), which states:
The liens provided for in this section may be enforced by civü action in the district court of the county where the hen was filed. Such an action shall be brought within one (1) year from the time of the filing of the hen with the county clerk. [919]*919The practice, pleading, and proceedings in the action shall conform to the rules prescribed by the Oklahoma Pleading Code [12 O.S.1991 § 2001, et seq.] to the extent applicable.
Both courts below held that the one year time limit set forth above effectively operates as a statute of limitations for bringing an action under § 46. Because appellant did not seek to enforce her previously filed liens within one year, the lower courts ruled that appellant’s remedy under § 46 was terminated andrher 1992 liens were unenforceable. For reasons set forth below, we find that the lower courts erred.
The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed in a statute. Ledbetter v. Okla. Alcoholic Bev. Laws Enforcement Comm’n, 764 P.2d 172, 179 (Okla.1988). “[I]n construing statutes relevant portions must be considered together, where possible, to give force and effect to each other. Further, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to begin with consideration of the language used and courts should not read into a statute exceptions not made by the Legislature.” Id. (footnotes omitted). Courts cannot ignore the terms prescribed by a statute creating a lien. Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat’l Corp., Inc., 614 P.2d 576, 579 (Okla.1980).
Based upon a clear reading of the language used in § 46, we find that appellant has followed the letter of the law. Initially, we note that § 46 contains no prohibition against physicians filing more than one lien statement which covers the same medical services and amounts. Second, as previously set forth, appellant complied with subsection 46(C) by filing her 1992 lien statements before appellees received any payment as a result of their personal injury settlement. Finally, we hold that the one year time limit of subsection 46(D) operates as a statute of limitations only insofar as it serves to bar a physician from enforcing a particular lien after the first anniversary of its filing. The expiration of the one year time limit does not extinguish a physician’s ability to refile and enforce a later lien securing the same obligation which was timely filed pursuant to § 46.
Title 42 O.S.1991 § 23 states that “[a] lien is extinguished by the mere lapse of the time within which, under the provisions of civil procedure, an action can be brought upon the principal obligation.” The underlying principal obligation in the case at bar was the written contract for medical services entered into by the parties. Under the provisions of civil procedure — namely 12 O.S.1991 § 95, First4 — appellant could have maintained an action against her patients for five years after the contract ended. The present action was filed well within that five year period. “When the statute of limitations bars a debt, that bar serves to extinguish any lien securing the debt.” Fourth Nat’l Bank of Tulsa v. Appleby, 864 P.2d 827, 834 (Okla. 1993). See also State ex rel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WATT, Justice:
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Debra Paul Nelson and her two children, appellees, were injured in an automobile accident and sought medical treatment from appellant, Debora K. Balfour, D.C. Nelson related that she was asserting claims against another party to recover for their injuries and that she had insufficient funds to pay for treatment at that time. The parties entered into a contract whereby Nelson agreed to pay for medical services either when she settled the personal injury claims or within three months after treatments ceased, whichever occurred first. Dr. Balfour began treating appellees in July of 1989.
Pursuant to 42 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 46, Dr. Balfour filed various lien statements covering her services to appellees. For Debra Nelson, hen statements were filed on March 28, 1990, in the amount of $3,994.60 and on July 9, 1990, in the amount of $5,057.40. For Jerome Phillips, hen statements were filed on August 22,1989 in the amount of $310.00 and on October 16, 1989, in the amount of $705.00. For Jeremy Phillips, hen statements were filed on August 2, 1989, in the [918]*918amount of $474.00 and on October 16, 1989, in the amount of $610.00. Each of the second lien statements were cumulative, incorporating amounts and services included in the first filings. Treatment on each patient ceased, respectively, after the filing of a second lien statement. Appellant never received any payment for her services nor did she ever seek to enforce any of the above liens.
Upon discovering that appellees were about to settle their personal injury claims, appellant filed a third lien statement for each patient. The statements, all filed on October 26, 1992, were for the same services and in the identical amounts claimed in the second lien filings. Appellees thereafter settled their personal injury claims.1 On October 28, 1992, appellant filed suit to foreclose her liens and sought pre-judgment garnishment of the appellees’ settlement proceeds.
The Honorable Karen Hibbs, Special District Judge, Grady County, sustained appellant’s motion for summary judgment for all amounts due, but denied her lien claims against the settlement proceeds. The court held that appellant’s foreclosure action failed because she did not file it within one year of the filing of the lien statements, and that the October 26, 1992, refilings for the same services and amounts did not reactivate the extinguished liens. Based upon similar reasoning, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. This Court granted appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari on July 11, 1994.
ISSUE
The sole issue presented is whether a doctor, who filed a physician’s lien statement against the personal injury settlement proceeds of her patient pursuant to 42 O.S.1991 § 46 but did not seek to enforce it within one year, can reestablish a lien claim against such proceeds by filing the same lien statement before the personal injury claim settled and before the statute of limitations ran on the underlying medical services contract. We answer this question in the affirmative.
DISCUSSION
Title 42 O.S.1991 § 462 provides physicians with a statutory method for obtaining a lien against the proceeds of a patient’s personal injury claim where the patient’s injuries were caused by another. The statute requires-that the doctor file a detañed statement with the appropriate county clerk and send certified copies of the statement to the effected parties. Section 46 does not set forth an arithmetical time limit within which a lien must be filed3, mandating only that the filing and notice requirements be met “before the payment of any monies to the injured person, his attorney, or legal representative as compensation for such injuries or death.” 42 O.S.1991 § 46(C). In the present case, the doctor followed the proper procedure for filing each of her lien statements and all were filed before appellees received any settlement proceeds.
The present dispute arises from the interpretation of § 46(D), which states:
The liens provided for in this section may be enforced by civü action in the district court of the county where the hen was filed. Such an action shall be brought within one (1) year from the time of the filing of the hen with the county clerk. [919]*919The practice, pleading, and proceedings in the action shall conform to the rules prescribed by the Oklahoma Pleading Code [12 O.S.1991 § 2001, et seq.] to the extent applicable.
Both courts below held that the one year time limit set forth above effectively operates as a statute of limitations for bringing an action under § 46. Because appellant did not seek to enforce her previously filed liens within one year, the lower courts ruled that appellant’s remedy under § 46 was terminated andrher 1992 liens were unenforceable. For reasons set forth below, we find that the lower courts erred.
The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed in a statute. Ledbetter v. Okla. Alcoholic Bev. Laws Enforcement Comm’n, 764 P.2d 172, 179 (Okla.1988). “[I]n construing statutes relevant portions must be considered together, where possible, to give force and effect to each other. Further, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to begin with consideration of the language used and courts should not read into a statute exceptions not made by the Legislature.” Id. (footnotes omitted). Courts cannot ignore the terms prescribed by a statute creating a lien. Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat’l Corp., Inc., 614 P.2d 576, 579 (Okla.1980).
Based upon a clear reading of the language used in § 46, we find that appellant has followed the letter of the law. Initially, we note that § 46 contains no prohibition against physicians filing more than one lien statement which covers the same medical services and amounts. Second, as previously set forth, appellant complied with subsection 46(C) by filing her 1992 lien statements before appellees received any payment as a result of their personal injury settlement. Finally, we hold that the one year time limit of subsection 46(D) operates as a statute of limitations only insofar as it serves to bar a physician from enforcing a particular lien after the first anniversary of its filing. The expiration of the one year time limit does not extinguish a physician’s ability to refile and enforce a later lien securing the same obligation which was timely filed pursuant to § 46.
Title 42 O.S.1991 § 23 states that “[a] lien is extinguished by the mere lapse of the time within which, under the provisions of civil procedure, an action can be brought upon the principal obligation.” The underlying principal obligation in the case at bar was the written contract for medical services entered into by the parties. Under the provisions of civil procedure — namely 12 O.S.1991 § 95, First4 — appellant could have maintained an action against her patients for five years after the contract ended. The present action was filed well within that five year period. “When the statute of limitations bars a debt, that bar serves to extinguish any lien securing the debt.” Fourth Nat’l Bank of Tulsa v. Appleby, 864 P.2d 827, 834 (Okla. 1993). See also State ex rel. Land Office Comm’rs v. Hall, 191 Okla. 257,128 P.2d 838, 840 (1942). The applicable statute of limitations did not bar an action on the debt at issue herein for five years.
It is apparent that the legislative intent of § 46 was to encourage physicians to provide medical services to persons .who have been injured by another and have insufficient funds or insurance to pay for the services when delivered. We also believe that § 46 was designed to insure that physicians are paid for their services once their patients are compensated for their injuries. Conversely, we do not believe that the legislature intended to require physicians to sue their patients yearly to foreclose their liens, particularly where treatment is ongoing. Such a procedure would impose additional expenses in the form of court costs and attorney fees to patients who are already financially strapped, [920]*920in addition to placing an undue strain upon the physician-patient relationship.
In Balfour v. Jacobs, 867 P.2d 1364 (Okla. App.1993), the appellant brought suit against the alleged tortfeasor and her liability insurer to foreclose a § 46 physician’s lien. The appellees argued that appellant could not obtain a lien until the claimant obtained a judgment and urged that the alleged tortfea-sor and her insurer could not be made a party to the action. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating inter alia:
If we were to agree with Appellees, then the lien could be defeated by the parties by simply waiting until the one year limitation period elapsed. The purpose of the statute would be thwarted.
Id. at 1366. The above quote applies to the present ease as well. If the one year limit of subsection 46(C) served as an absolute bar to bringing an action under § 46, a physician’s ability to utilize that section as the Legislature intended could be defeated by the parties by simply waiting for more than one year after the hen statement was filed to settle their claim. The purpose of the statute would indeed be thwarted by such a procedure.
CONCLUSION
The expiration of the one year time limit of § 46(C) does not bar a timely refiling of a hen. Rather, the time limit operates only to prevent a physician from enforcing a particular hen after the first anniversary of its filing. A § 46 physician’s hen filed before the injured patient has received any proceeds in settlement of her personal injury claim and before the statute of limitations has run on the underlying obhgation is vahd and enforceable if suit is brought to enforce it within one year. This is true regardless of whether the same services or amounts were included in a previously filed but unenforced hen.
Certiorari previously granted. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
KAUGER, J., concurs in result.
ALMA WILSON, J., dissents.