In Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861, the defendant doctor in plaintiff's medical negligence action alleged plaintiff's failure to obtain and provide an expert's affidavit of merit as required by 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 1-1708.1E, subjecting plaintiff's case to dismissal. Plaintiff objected, complaining, inter alia, "that the affidavit requirement of. . . 1-1708.1E constituted an unconstitutional special law under the Oklahoma Constitution art. 5, 46 and 59 and that it violated the constitutional guarantee of access to the courts contained in art. 2, 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Id. The trial court agreed with defendant, and "entered a final order of dismissal without prejudice." On plaintiff's appeal, the Supreme Court first observed: "The terms of art. 5, 46 command that court procedure be symmetrical and apply equally across the board for an entire class of similarly situated persons or things. In a special laws attack under art. 5, 46, the only issue to be resolved is whether a statute upon a subject enumerated in the constitutional provision targets for different treatment less than an entire class of similarly situated persons or things. The test is whether the provision fits into the structured regime of established procedure as part of a symmetrical whole. If an enactment injects asymmetry, the 46 interdiction of special law has been offended." The Supreme Court then recognized three groups of tort claimants affected by the affidavit of merit provision in 1-1708.1E: The affidavit of merit requirement immediately divides tort victims alleging negligence into two classes - those who pursue a cause of action in negligence generally and those who name medical professionals as defendants. . . . Plaintiffs alleging anything other than medical negligence need only file a petition giving fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. These claimants have no affidavit requirement and may commence a cause of action with the filing of a petition, while those alleging medical malpractice must obtain a professional opinion that their cause is meritorious as a prerequisite to pursuing suit or be subject to dismissal. Not only does 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 1-1708.1E divide tort victims on the basis of whether the victim is pursuing a general negligence claim or whether medical malpractice damage is alleged, it also necessitates the recognition of a subset of medical malpractice claimants relying on the legislatively codified doctrine of res ipsa loquitor for medical malpractice cases. This is a doctrine we may not presume the Legislature intended to repeal by implication in passing 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 1-1708.1E. The nature of a res ipsa loquitor claim often negates the necessity of expert testimony to prove the cause. Therefore, if 63 O.S. Supp.2003 1-1708.1E is inapplicable to such claims - which may be brought against physicians and hospitals, a third subsection of the whole of negligence plaintiffs is severed. With the enactment of the affidavit of merit statute, courts are required to classify three sets of negligence plaintiffs: (1) general negligence plaintiffs - not required to file an affidavit of merit; (2) medical malpractice plaintiffs to which the affidavit requirement of 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 1-1708.1E applies; and (3) a third class comprised of medical malpractice plaintiffs who may not be subject to 63 O.S. Supp. 2003 1-1708.1E because, generally, no professional opinion is required for recovery under res ipsa loquitor. (Zeier, 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d at 867-868.)