Date: 10-02-2013

Case Style: Brandon Andrew v. Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O.

Case Number: CJ-2009-10713

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Glendell D. Nix and Jacob Diesselhorst

Defendant's Attorney: Glen D. Huff, David Branscum and Matthew D. Martin for Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation, Integris Health, Inc., and Elisa Depani-Sparkes

Kyle N. Sweet, Curtis J. Dewberry and Elaina M. Osteen for Mercy Health Center, Inc.

Russell L. Hendrickson for The Physician Group, P.L.L.C.

Description: Brandon Andrew and Danielle Edwards, individually and as parents and next friends of Briana Andrew sued Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O.; The Physician Group, P.L.L.C. a/k/a Occo Healthcare Network; Mercy Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Mercy Health Center; Integris Health, Inc.; and Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation a/b/a Integris Family Care Edmond on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

I. PARTIES AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Danielle Edwards, is the mother and next friend of Briana Andrew, a minor child. Danielle and Briana live in Oklahoma County.

2. Briana Andrew was born on December 20, 2007, at Mercy Health Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in Oklahoma County.

3. Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O. is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Elisa Depani Sparkes, D.O. M.D. practiced medicine in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and held herself out as a specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

4. Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O. as a specialist in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, is required to apply, with ordinary care and diligence, the knowledge and skill possessed by other specialists in good standing engaged in the practice of such.

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O. individually andlor by and through her agents and/or employees, provided health care services to Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O., individually and/or by and through her agents and/or employees, was acting as an agent (actual and/or ostensible) and/or employee of the Defendants, The Physician Group, P.L.L.C. a/k/a OSSO Healthcare Network; Mercy Health Center, Inc. dJbla Mercy Health Center; Integris Health, Inc. and/or Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation d/b/a Integris Family Care Edmond, when providing health care services to Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew in Oklahoma County.

7. Defendant The Physician Group, P.L.L.C. a/Ida OSSO Healthcare Network is a domestic, for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County.

8. Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Mercy Health Center is a domestic not-for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County.

9. Defendant Integris Health, Inc. is a domestic not-for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendant Integris Health, Inc. owned, operated, substantially controlled and/or directed the operation and/or management of Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation d/b/a Integris Family Care Edmond in Oklahoma County.

10. Defendant Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation d/b/a Integris Family Care Edmond is a domestic not-for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County.

11. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, The Physician Group, P.L.L.C. alicia OSSO Healthcare Network; Mercy Health Center, Inc. dlb/a Mercy Health Center; Integris, Inc. and Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation d/bla Integris Family Care Edmond, by and through their agents, servants and/or employees, provided medical care and treatment to Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew in Oklahoma County.

12. The acts and omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

13. This action is for damages pursuant to the Affordable Access to Health Care Act 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1A, etseq.

14. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 130, venue in this case is proper in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

II. ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-14, and further alleges as follows:

15. Commencing on or about January 1, 2007, and continuing thereafter until the present, Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew were patients entrusted to the care of the Defendants and/or the agents and/or employees of the Defendants.

16. Commencing on or about January 1, 2007, and continuing thereafter until the present, the Defendants, individually, corporately and/or by and through their agents and/or employees, negligently rendered treatment to Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew below acceptable medical standards for similarly situated health care providers.

17. Commencing on or about January 1, 2007, and continuing thereafter until the present, the Defendants andlor the agents andlor employees of Defendants violated the duties owed Danielle Edwards andJor Briana Andrew of ordinary care and diligence exercised by reasonably prudent healthcare providers in the same and similar circumstances and were negligent in one or more particulars in connection with the care of Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew. Such negligent acts and/or omissions of substandard care, taken separately or collectively, constitute a proximate cause of the injuries and damages claimed in this lawsuit.

18. The foregoing acts of negligence on the part of the Defendants andlor their agents, servants, and employees, taken individually and/or collectively, were a direct cause of Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew’s injuries and damages, including but not limited to physical pain and suffering, mental pain and suffering, medical expenses, life care costs, future medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings capacity, emotional suffering and other economic and non-economic damages.

19. The acts and omissions of Defendants were reckless, grossly negligent and/or were such as to show a reckless disregard for the health and safety of Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew, therefore, punitive damages are appropriate against the Defendants.

20. The severe personal injuries of Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew were not a proximate result of any act or omission of Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew, but attribute wholly to the conduct of all the Defendants herein, taken collectively and/or individually. Accordingly, the Defendants are without basis to refute application of the doctrine ofjoint and severable liability under the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Laubach v. Morgan, 1978 OK 5, ¶J 13-14, 588 P.2d 1071, 1074. See also Boyles v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 1980 OK 163, 619 P.2d 613. Thus, the Defendants are each of them, jointly and severally liable for the injuries and damages sustained by Danielle Edwards and/or Briana Andrew.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff, Danielle Edwards, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Briana Andrew, a minor, for her negligence claims, prays for judgment for compensatory damages against Defendants each in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, plus costs and interest and for punitive damages against Defendants each in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, together with attorney fees, costs, interest and such other damages as the Court deems appropriate.

Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparks appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant Sparkes specifically denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, as well as the prayer for relief which follows, unless specifically admitted in this Answer.

2. Defendant Sparkes is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

3. The allegations in paragraph 3,4, and 5 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition are admitted.

4. The allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition are mere legal conclusions as opposed to allegations of fact and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed to be necessary, Defendant Sparkes is without knowledge as to the specific facts underlying Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and the allegations are therefore denied.

5. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 6 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, Defendant Sparkes admits that she provided prenatal and labor and delivery medical care and treatment to the plaintiffs.

6. The allegations in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition do not relate to this answering Defendant and therefore, no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed to be necessary, those allegations are denied.

7. With regard to the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 and 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, Defendant Sparkes admits that venue is technically appropriate in Oklahoma Countypursuantto 120.5. §130.

8. The allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition related to damages are specifically denied.

9. The allegations contained in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, together, with the prayer for relief which follows, are specifically denied. Rather, Defendant Sparkes specifically denies that she was negligent in any manner during the care and treatment of the plaintiffs. Moreover, this Defendant performed all medical care and treatment relating to the plaintiffs properly and within the standard of care applicable to this Defendant.

10. Defendant Sparkes specifically denies that she was in any way negligent and states that all medical care and treatment rendered to the plaintiffs was in all particulars appropriate and within the standard of care.

11. Defendant Sparkes specifically denies that any act or omission on the part of her or her agents and/or employees was the direct or proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiffs.

12. Defendant Sparkes alleges that the damages to the plaintiffs, if any, resulted from unavoidable or unforeseeable complications arising from the underlying medical conditions of the plaintiffs which were not caused by any health care providers.

13. Defendant Sparkes specifically denies Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief including the prayer for punitive damages.

14. Since discovery has not begun, Defendant Sparkes reserves the right to amend her Answer in any particular.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Petition fails to state a claim against this Defendant upon which relief can be granted, either in whole or in part. This defense includes but is not limited to the claims that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur may be applied under the circumstances of this case.

2. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in party, by the applicable statute of limitations.

3. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the Plaintiffs. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of others over whom these Defendants exercised no control.

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by a pre-existing or post-developing unrelated medical condition, disease, illness or infection for which this Defendant is not responsible.

5. The imposition ofpunitive damages in this case would violate this Defendant’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its right to freedom from excessive fines under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6. Defendant Sparkes denies that she is liable for any punitive andlor exemplary damages. Defendant Sparkes denies that any act or failure to act on the part of any agent, servant or employee of this Defendant in relation to the Plaintiffs is sufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

7. Defendant Sparkes asserts Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates provisions of the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions. For example, the imposition of punitive damages under Oklahoma law would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution in each of the following ways:

(a) Oklahoma law permits the imposition of unlimited punitive damages that are vastly disproportionate to any acts or compensatory injury thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(b) Disproportionate punitive damages constitute an arbitrary and capricious taking of property which is unjustified by any rational governmental interests, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

(c) The award of punitive damages without specific standards to guide the jury’s discretion in determining the amount of damages is contrary to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(d) Oklahoma does not provide a reasonable limit on the amount of any punitive damages award, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(e) The substance of standards of liability under which punitive damages are sought in this case are ambiguous, subjective, and not reasonably ascertainable, and thus “void for vagueness” under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(f) Oklahoma fails to provide a clear, objective and consistent appellate standard for post-verdict review of punitive damages thus violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,

(g) Oklahoma law permits civil punishment upon a standard of proof less than required for the imposition of criminal sanctions.

(h) Oklahoma law permits multiple awards of punitive damages for the same alleged act or omission.

(i) Oklahoma law and procedures governing Plaintiffs’ punitive damage claim violates the Fifih Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution because said claim is penal in nature, while Defendants are required to disclose documents and/or other evidence against their interests under the rules of discovery and evidence. 0) The procedural standards for imposing punitive damages are unduly vague and do not furnish the jury sufficient guidance in determining whether and how much to award punitive damages for the alleged tortious acts of the Defendants and thereby permits arbitrary and capricious taking of property in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

8. Moreover, any award of punitive damages in this case would be violative of this Defendant’s procedural and substantive due process rights because circumstances in this case are insufficient to support the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages and there are inadequate legal and procedural constraints imposed on the fact finder’s discretion to impose such awards. The standard for punitive damages lacks sufficiently objective criteria and procedural safeguards to give a jury adequate criteria on an appropriate range of proportionality regarding punitive damages. Furthermore, post-trial procedures and standards for trial court scrutiny of punitive damages awards and standards for appellate review of punitive damages awards are insufficient, and, therefore, violate Defendant’s right to due process of law.

9. Defendant reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses or otherwise amend her answer, as discovery has not yet begun.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O., prays that Plaintiffs take nothing and that Defendant be awarded her costs and fees in this action and any further relief the Court finds to be equitable.


Integris Health, Inc. and Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation, d/b/a Integris Family Care Edmond appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant INTEGRIS specifically denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, as well as the prayer for relief which follows, unless specifically admitted in this Answer.

2. Defendant INmolus is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

3. The allegations in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition do not relate to this answering Defendant and therefore, no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed to be necessary, those allegations are denied.

4. The allegations contained in paragraphs 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition are mere legal conclusions as opposed to allegations of fact and no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed to be necessary, Defendant INTEGRIS is without knowledge as to the specific facts underlying Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and the allegations are therefore denied. Furthermore, Defendant INTEGRIS specifically denies that Defendant Elisa Depani-Sparkes, D.O., was either an agent or employee of INTEGRIS Health, Inc., and INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, d/b/a INTEGRIS Family Care Edmond, at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit.

5. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, it is admitted that INTEGRIS Health, Inc. is an Oklahoma not-for-profit corporation and is the parent corporation of INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, d/b/a INTEGRI5 Family Care Edmond. It is specifically denied that INTEGRIS Health, Inc., and INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, dJb/a INTEGRIS Family Care Edmond, nor any of its agents and/or employees provided medical care and treatment or any health care services to the plaintiffs.

6. With regard to the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 and 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, Defendant INTEGRIS admits that venue is technically appropriate in Oklahoma County pursuant to 12 U.S. §130.

7. The allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition related to damages are specifically denied.

8. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, it is specifically denied that INTEGRIS Health, Inc., and INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, d/b/a INTEGRIS Family Care Edmond, nor any of its agents and/or employees provided health care services to the plaintiffs.

9. Defendant INmGRIS specifically denies that it was in any way negligent and states that all hospital, nursing, and medical care and treatment rendered to the plaintiffs was in all particulars appropriate and within the standard of care.

10. Defendant INTEGRIS specifically denies that any act or omission on the part of its agents and/or employees was the direct or proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiffs.

11. Defendant INTEGRIS alleges that the damages to the plaintiffs, if any, resulted from unavoidable or unforeseeable complications arising from the underlying medical conditions of the plaintiffs which were not caused by any health care providers.

12. Defendant INTEGRIS specifically denies Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief including the prayer for punitive damages.

13. Since discovery has not begun, Defendant INTEGRIS reserves the right to amend its Answer in any particular.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Petition fails to state a claim against these Defendants upon which relief can be granted, either in whole or in part.

2. Defendants INTEGRISHea1th, Inc., and INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, d/b/a INTEGRIS Family Care Edmond, are not proper parties to this lawsuit, and did not provide medical care to the plaintiffs.

3. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in party, by the applicable statute of limitations.

4. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the Plaintiffs. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of others over whom these Defendants exercised no control.

5. The Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by a pre-existing or post-developing unrelated medical condition, disease, illness or infection for which these Defendants are not responsible.

6. The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate these Defendants’ right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its right to freedom from excessive fines under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

7. Defendant INTECIRIS denies that it is liable for any punitive and/or exemplary damages. Defendant INTEGRIS denies that any act or failure to act on the part of any agent, servant or employee of these Defendants in relation to the Plaintiffs is sufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

8. Defendant INTEGRIS asserts Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates provisions of the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions. For example, the imposition of punitive damages under Oklahoma law would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution in each of the following ways:

(a) Oklahoma law permits the imposition of unlimited punitive damages that are vastly disproportionate to any acts or compensatory injury thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(b) Disproportionate punitive damages constitute an arbitrary and capricious taking of property which is unjustified by any rational governmental interests, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

(c) The award of punitive damages without specific standards to guide the jury’s discretion in determining the amount of damages is contrary to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(d) Oklahoma does not provide a reasonable limit on the amount of any punitive damages award, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(e) The substance of standards of liability under which punitive damages are sought in this case are ambiguous, subjective, and not reasonably ascertainable, and thus “void for vagueness” under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(1) Oklahoma fails to provide a clear, objective and consistent appellate standard for post-verdict review of punitive damages thus violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

(g) Oklahoma law permits civil punishment upon a standard of proof less than required for the imposition of criminal sanctions.

(ii) Oklahoma law permits multiple awards of punitive damages for the same alleged act or omission.

(i) Oklahoma law and procedures goveming Plaintiffs punitive damage claim violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution because said claim is penal in nature, while Defendants are required to disclose documents and/or other evidence against their interests under the rules of discovery and evidence. 0) The procedural standards for imposing punitive damages are unduly vague and do not furnish the jury sufficient guidance in determining whether and how much to award punitive damages for the alleged tortious acts of the Defendants and thereby permits arbitrary and capricious taking of property in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

9. Moreover, any award of punitive damages in this case would be violative of these Defendants’ procedural and substantive due process rights because circumstances in this case are insufficient to support the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages and there are inadequate legal and procedural constraints imposed on the fact finder’s discretion to impose such awards. The standard for punitive damages lacks sufficiently objective criteria and procedural safeguards to give a jury adequate criteria on an appropriate range of proportionality regarding punitive damages. Furthermore, post-trial procedures and standards for trial court scrutiny of punitive damages awards and standards for appellate review of punitive damages awards are insufficient, and, therefore, violate Defendants’ right to due process of law.

10. Defendants reserve the right to plead additional affirmative defenses or otherwise amend their answer, as discovery has not yet begun.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendants INTEGRIS Health, Inc., and INTEGRIS Ambulatory Care Corporation, d!b/a INTEGRIS Family Care Edmond, pray that Plaintiffs take nothing and that Defendants be awarded their costs and fees in this action and any further relief the Court finds to be equitable.

Mercy Memorial Health Care Center, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

I.

Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Amended Petition of the Plaintiffs, except such allegations as are hereinafter specifically admitted.

II.

Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 1 or 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore denies the same.

III.

Defendant admits Paragraph No. 3 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition,

Iv.

With regard to Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 the same do not appear to be directed at this Defendant; therefore, this Defendant will defer the answer to the proper party. To the extent a response is required, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the same. Therefore, Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are denied.

V.

Defendant denies Paragraph Nos. 7 and 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Pet ition as it relates to this Defendant.

VI.

Defendant admits Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

VII.

Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 and therefore denies the same.

VIII.

Defendant admits Paragraph No. 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

Ix.

With regard to Paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19,20 and 21, of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, Defendant will not answer on behalf of the other defendants. Rather, Defendant responds only to the extent ParagraphNos. 16, 17, 18, 19,20 and 21 are directed at it. Further, Defendant denies the same.

x.

Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation or prayer for relief contained in the WHEREFORE Paragraph of Plaintiffs’ Amended Pet ition.

XI.

Defendant specifically denies that it was negligent in any manner or at any time in the care and treatment of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child. Rather, the Defendant states that the care and treatment of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child was at all times and in every manner proper and within the standard of care applicable to this Defendant.

XII.

Defendant specifically denies that any act or omission on its part in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child was the proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child.

XIII.

Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child sustained any injury or suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on its part.

XIV.

Discovery being incomplete, Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend it’s Answer in any particular or to add any affinnative defense as more information becomes available through the discovery process.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For Affirmative Defenses, Defendant, Mercy Health Center, Inc., alleges and states as follows:

I.

The Amended Petition of Plaintiffs fails to state a claim against this Defendant on any ground upon which relief can be granted.

II.

The Amended Petition of Plaintiffs fails to state a claim against this Defendant for punitive damages, and the Defendant therefore requests the Court to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages.

III.

The imposition of punitive damages against this Defendant would be unconstitutional and would violate the rights of this Defendant under the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

Iv.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs were caused by the voluntary assumption of the risk by Plaintiffs.

V.

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were caused or contributed to by the acts, conduct or negligence of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ minor child.

VI.

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by the acts or negligence of a person or persons other than Defendant, over whom Defendant exercised no control or supervision and with whom the Defendant had no legal relationship, and for whose acts Defendant is not responsible.

VII.

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

VIII.

Defendant asserts any and all defenses, limitations and/or bars to recovery under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, common law or statutory law.

Ix.

Lack ofjurisdiction (personal, subject matter andlor venue), if applicable.

x.

Insufficiency of process and service of process, if applicable.

XI.

Lack of capacity to be sued, if applicable.

XII.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, Plaintiff; Brandon Andrew’s, claims, to the extent he is asserting any on his own behalf, are barred.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant, Mercy Memorial Health Center, Inc., prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their AmendedPetition and that it be dismissed herein with costs.

The parties entered into the following stipulated protective order:

By mutual agreement of the parties herein concerning the request of the Defendant, Mercy Health Center, for a Protective Order, and the Court being fully advised of the premises, the parties have agreed to the following:

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by this Court that documents produced by Defendant in this litigation pursuant to this Stipulated Protective Order shall not be disclosed or disseminated, except in compliance with the following provisions:

1. The information designated as confidential and produced pursuant to this Stipulated Protective Order above shall be used solely for the purposes of this litigation and shall not be given, shown, made available, discussed or otherwise communicated in any form to anyone other than:

(A) Attorneys for the parties in this litigation and their employees;

(B) The parties in this litigation;

(C) Retained experts and other witnesses; and

(D) The court and any employees of the court designated by the court.

It shall be the responsibility of Defendant’s counsel to designate the documents produced subject to this order as such. It shall be the responsibility of counsel receiving documents so designated to bring this order to the attention of all persons to whom they disclose such documents, or information contained therein, and to advise them that all persons receiving such documents are bound by the terms of this protective order.

2, No document (including briefs, depositions and exhibits) containing documents or information protected under this order shall be filed with the clerk of the court unless it is marked with a legend substantially as follows: “Confidential Subject to Protective Order Entered.” No one other than persons described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph 1 shall have access to such material.

3. This order shall govern all pretrial proceedings and remain in effect unless and until it is superseded by the further order of this Court. By seeking this order or by not opposing it, the parties are not waiving any claims or objections concerning production of the subject information or its use at trial whether in documentary form or through testimony.

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice as to Integris Health, Inc. and Integris Ambulatory Care Corporation.


Order Approving Compromise Settlement

NOW, on the 12th day of September, 2013, upon the Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Settlement between Plaintiffs, Brandon Andrew and Danielle Edwards, and Defendant, The Physicians’ Group, L.L.C, (TPG) came to be heard before me, the undersigned Judge of the District Court in and for Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, having been specially set. Plaintiffs appeared by and through their counsel and Defendant appeared by and through counsel, Ian Steedman. The parties having announced that they were prepared and ready for the hearing to proceed, the Court proceeded to hear the evidence of witnesses and statements of parties and counsel; and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds and orders:

1. The Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant TPG only, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein, is hereby approved by the Court as being fair and in the best interest of the minor plaintiff, Briana Andrew. 2. Plaintiffs, Brandon Andrew and Danielle Edwards, are the parents of Briana Andrew and are authorized by law to enter into this agreement on behalf of their minor child, Briana Andrew.

3. In accordance therewith, the sum of Twenty Thousand and No/I 00 Dollars ($20,000.00) shall be paid on behalf of the Defendant TPG to Plaintiffs on behalf of minor child, Briana Andrew, for her injuries.

4. Settlement is not to be construed as an admission of liability on behalf of the Defendant TPG, but is made for the purpose of compromising a disputed claim.

6. Plaintiffs, as parents and next friends acting on behalf of minor child, Briana Andrew, are hereby directed upon performance by the Defendant of the terms of the compromise settlement, to execute on behalf of said minor any and all documents necessary to fully and finally dispose of and conclude any claims including, but not limited to, the filing of a Dismissal With Prejudice of their claims against TPG only, along with executing a Release In Full Of All Claims.

All other claims are pending.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Note: Medical malpractice cases like this case are some of the most difficult for plaintiff attorneys to successfully prosecute.