Date: 11-10-2012

Case Style: Judy Williams v. Dr. James Lockhart, Jr. and Surgical Associates, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2008-2709

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Clark Otto Brewster and Jennifer DeAngelis, Brewster & DeAngelis, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Timothy G. Best and Amy Ellen Kempfert, for James B. Lockhart, Jr. and Surgical Associates, Inc.

Description: Judy Williams, age 59, sued Dr. James Lockhart, Jr. and Surgical Associates on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory claiming that she received substandard care from Dr. Lockhardt when he operated on her thyroid in 2006 and, as direct result, she suffered nerve damage that paralyzed her vocal cord with the result that her ability to speak and breath. Mrs. Williams sued Surgical Associates on a respondeat superior theory claiming that Dr. Lockhart was acting on behalf of the company while treating her.

Doyle Williams, Mrs. William's husband, also sued the Defendants on loss of consortium theories.

The defendants denied that the care fell below the standard of care and denied that any act, error or omission on Dr. Lockhart's part caused or contributed the injuries and damages alleged.

Pre-Trial Order:

2. GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS:
a. What: Medical Negligence
b. Where: Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma
c. When: July 25, 2006
d. Who: James B. Lockhart, Jr. and Surgical Associates, Inc.
e. Other: N/A

3. PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS:

Applicable Statute Ordinance, Grounds for Recovery Common Law Rule

a. Medical negligence Common Law Damages or Relief Sought Amount

a. Personal injuries:
(Permanent X Temporary )

Describe: Paralysis of the recurrent laryngeal nerves. In Excess of
$ 2,000,000.00

b. Medical and hospital expense: In Excess of

Past $ 250,000.00

Future $ 500.000.00

c. Plaintiffs physical and mental pain & suffering: In Excess of
$1,000,000.00

d. Loss of spousal services/consortium: $ 500,000.00

e. Punitive/Exemplary Damages $ 1,000,000.00

TOTAL $ 4,750,000.00

4. DEFENSES:

Applicable Statute
Ordinance,
Grounds for Defense Common Law Rule

On behalf of Defendant, James B. Lockhart, Jr., M.D.:

a. Defendant James B. Lockhart, M.D. states that at all Common Law material times lie rendered reasonable and appropriate medical care to Plaintiffs, commensurate with medical standards.

b. Defendant James B. Lockhart, M.D. denies that he Common Law caused any injury to Plaintiffs, and further states
that any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were an unavoidable causality over which this Defendant had no control.

c. Any damages aflegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were Common Law2 caused by intervening or supervening causes for
which this Defendant is not responsible.

d. Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were Common Law2 caused by a subsequent medical condition for which
these Defendants are not responsible.

e. Plaintiffs’ non-economic damages are subject to the 63 U.S. § l-1708.1F- limitations of 63 0.5. § 1-1708JF-l and 23 U.S. § i 23 0.5. § 61.2
61.2.

f. Plaintiffs are precluded from recovcring medical 63 U.S. § 1-1708 et bills that have been paid by a third party and for seq.2
which the third party does not claim a right of subrogation. In this regard, the Defendants reserve the right under 63 OS. § 1-1708.1D to introduce payment of the medical bills.

g. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering punitive Ukla. Constitution; damages in this case on the basis of the Oklahoma U.S. Constitution; 23 Constitution and the U.S. Constitution; in addition, O.S. § 9.1; Common the facts do not support a punitive instruction/claim, law.

Applicable Statute
Ordinance,
Grounds for Defense Common Law Rule

On behalf of Defendant, Surgical Associates, Inc.:

a. Defendant Surgical Associates, Inc. states that at all Common Law; material times its employee rendered reasonable and appropriate medical care to Plaintiffs, commensurate with medical standards.

b. Defendant Surgical Associates, Inc. denies that it Common Law caused any injury to Plaintiffs, and further states
that any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were an unavoidable causality over which this Defendant had no control.

c. Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were Common Law2 caused by intervening or supervening causes for
which this Defendant is not responsible.

d. Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were Common Law2 caused by a subsequent medical condition for which
these Defendants are not responsible.

e. Plaintiffs’ non-economic damages arc subject to the 63 U.S. § 1-1708.1F- limitations of 63 OS. § 1-1708.lF-l and 23 U.S. § 1223 U.S. § 61.2. 6 1.2.

f. Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering medical 63 0.5. § 1-1708 et bills that have been paid by a third party and for seq. 2 which the third party does not claim a right of subrogation. In this regard, the Defendants reserve the right under 63 0.5. § 1-1708.ID to introduce payment of the medical biBs.

g. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering punitive Okia. Constitution; damages in this case on the basis of the Oklahoma U.S. Constitution; 23 Constitution and the U.S. Constitution; in addition, 0.5. § 9.1; Common the facts do not support a punitive instruction/claim, law.


Court Trial Minute:

BARCUS, MARK: NOW ON THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA RECONVENES PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT. PRESENT AND PRESIDING: HONORABLE MARK BARCUS, DISTRICT JUDGE; DEE DEE TANNER, COURT REPORTER; JOHN MCNEW, BAILIFF; SUE FARIS, MINUTE CLERK. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD TO WIT:

CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL. BOTH SIDES PRESENT IN OPEN COURT AND ANNOUNCE READY FOR TRIAL. PLAINTIFF PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY CLARK BREWSTER AND JENNIFER DEANGELIS. DEFENDANT PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY TIM BEST AND AMY KEMPFERT.
THE JURORS ARE CALLED AND SWORN TO QUALIFICATIONS. THE JURY IS IMPANELED AND EXAMINED FOR CAUSE. FOUR (4) JURORS ARE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE.

OPENING STATEMENTS ARE MADE. SEVEN (7) WITNESSES SWORN FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THREE (3) BEING EXPERTS. FOUR (4) WITNESSES SWORN FOR THE DEFENDANT, ONE (1) BEING AN EXPERT. RULE WAS INVOKED. THREE (3) OFFER OF PROOF WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. BOTH SIDES REST.

THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED AS TO THE LAW. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. THE SWEARING OF THE BAILIFF IS WAIVED AND ON 10-24-12 AT 3:22 P.M., THE JURY RETIRES FOR DELIBERATION IN CUSTODY OF THE BAILIFF. ON 10-24-12 AT 8:06 P.M., THE JURY RETURNS INTO OPEN COURT WITH THEIR VERDICT, WHICH IS READ IN OPEN COURT, ORDERED RECORDED AND FILED, AND IS, TO WIT: "WE, THE JURY, EMPANELED AND SWORN IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE, DO, UPON OUR OATHS, FIND THE ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS, JUDY AND DOYLE WILLIAMS, AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS:

DR. JAMES LOCKHART YES

SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. YES

AND FIX THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF HER DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF $5,000.000,
AND/OR FIX THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF HIS DAMAGE IN THE SUM OF $2,500.000,
SIGNED FOREPERSON." NINE JURORS CONCURRING. JURY DISCHARGED.

See: Court Docket

Outcome: The above-referenced cause came on for trial on October 15, 2012 Plaintiffs, Judy C.Williams and Doyle Williams were represented by Clark 0 Brewster and Jenmfer L De Angehs, of Breyster & DeAngelis, PLLC. Defendants, James B. Lockhart, Jr., M.D., and Surgical Associates, In were represented by Timothy G. Best and Amy E. Kempfert of Best & Sharp, PC.

The Court then proceeded to conduct voir dire. A jury of twelve (12) members and two (2) alternates was empanelled. Plaintiffs proceeded to present their case. Plaintiffs presented witnesses and evidence. At the close of Plaintiffs’ evidence, Plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability and Defendants demurred to the evidence and moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ cause. Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendants’ Motion were denied. Defendants then presented witnesses and evidence. After Defendants rested, they renewed their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ cause, which Motion was denied.

The Court heard argument and ruled upon objections regarding jury instructions. The jury was properly instructed and counsel made closing arguments. The alternates were dismissed and the jury retired to deliberate.

We, the jury, empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled cause, do upon our oaths, find the issues in favor of the Plaintiffs, Judy and Doyle Williams, and against Defendants:

Dr. James Lockhart X YES — NO

Surgical Associates, Inc. X YES — NO

and fix the dollar amount of her damages in the sum of $5,000,000.00 and fix the dollar amount of his damages in the sum of $2,500,000.00.

The verdict was signed by nine (9) of the twelve (12) jurors. The Court polled the jury and the verdict of the jury was then accepted in open court and filed of record.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: The Plaintiffs, Judy C. Williams and Doyle Williams, are awarded judgment against James B. Lockhart, Jr., M.D., and Surgical Associates, Inc. Judy C. Williams is awarded Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in actual damages for her claim of medical negligence plus prejudgment interest in the amount of Six Hundred Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Dollars and Eighty-Five Cents ($608,914.85) plus postjudgment interest accruing thereon at the rate of 5.25% from the date of entry of this journal entry until paid in full. Doyle Williams is awarded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000.00) in actual damages plus prejudgment interest in the amount of Three Hundred Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars and Forty-Three Cents ($304,457.43) for his claim of loss of consortium plus postjudgment interest accruing thereon at the rate of 5.25% from the date of entry of this journal entry until paid in full.

Settled on appeal for an undisclosed sum.

0-04-2013 DISPDMRS 1 LOCKHART, JAMES B JR 86946554 Oct 4 2013 4:21:27:800PM - $ 0.00
RELEASE OF JUDGMENT FILED NOV 8,2012

10-04-2013 DISPDMRS 1 SURGICAL ASSOCIATES INC 86946555 Oct 4 2013 4:21:27:950PM - $ 0.00
RELEASE OF JUDGMENT FILED NOV 8, 2012

10-04-2013 DISPDMRS 1 SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL INC 86946556 Oct 4 2013 4:21:27:980PM - $ 0.00
RELEASE OF JUDGMENT FILED NOV 8,2012

Plaintiff's Experts: Robert Ossoff, M.D., Nashville, Tennessee, Otolaryngology; Michael Bouvet, M.D., San Diego, California, general surgery; Edward W. Cetaruk, M.D., FASMT, Denver, Colorado, toxicologist

Defendant's Experts: John W. Phillips, M.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma, general surgeon and Geroge W. Schnetzer, M.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma, hematology and oncology, Dominic Losacco, M.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma, psychiatry; James Higgins, M.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma, cardiology and internal medicine

Comments: Editor's Comment: Surgeries on the human neck require great skill on the part of the surgeon and failure on the surgeon's part to exercise due care can result in catastrophic injury to the patient. Given the past history of the trial medical malpractice cases in Tulsa would tend to indicate that Dr. Lockhart was more than likely to win this case. Kent Morlan The Tulsa World report on May 18, 2014, that local doctors have contributed more than $200,000 to the campaign of Tulsa District Attorney Drug Drummond who has filed for the judicial position currently held by Judge Barcus. This is the second time in recent history in which the defense firm that represented a doctor who lost a medical malpractice case has attempted to remove a setting civil district judge in Tulsa County. Judge Gail Harris was defeated in her bid for re-election by Tom Gillert who received about $250,000 from local doctors to fund his bid to unseat Judge Harris. The doctors are contributing money to Doug Drummond's campaign not because they think Mr. Dummond will be a good judge but because they are angry at Judge Barcus and they want to intimidate the Tulsa County judges into making rulings favorable to them and against patients who sue them for the harm that they claim that they have sustained as a direct result of medical negligence by their doctors.