Date: 03-27-2014

Case Style: Amy Kanatzar v. Dr. Russell L. Gornichec

Case Number: CJ-2010-7919

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mickey Walsh and Charles Gregory Smart for Amy Kanatzar

Defendant's Attorney: Jeffrey A. Glendening for Dr. Gornichec

Inona Jane Harness for Dr. Lynne Valerie OZinga, M.D.

Glen D. Huff, Robert D. Hoisington, Lauren K. Lindsey and Anthony S. Moore for Integris Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and Integris South Oklahoma City Hospital Corporation

Description: COMES NOW, the Plaintiff and for her cause of action against the Defendants, alleges and states as follows:

1. Amy Kanatzar is a resident of Oklahoma County; the actions giving rise to Plaintiffs cause of actions against these Defendants occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; that the District Court of Oklahoma County has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties hereto.

2. Plaintiff ifirther alleges that on or about June 17, 2008, Dr. Gornichec performed a lap band procedure; that subsequent to this time, the lap band was removed due to complications; that on August 17, 2009, a CT scan was performed at Integris Baptist Medical Center, the radiologist who read the CT scan failed to note a foreign body present; that on October 20, 2009, another CT scan was performed at Inrtegris South Oklahoma City Hospital (a/k/a Southwest Medical Center), and the radiologist that read that sean failed to detect a foreign body.

3. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant, Dr. Gornichec, was negligent, in that he left a foreign body in the Plaintiff at the time the lap band was removed; that it was not until February 4, 2010, that a CT scan revealed the presence of a foreign body.

4. Plaintiff further alleges that radiologists employed by both the Defendant, Integris Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and Integris South Oklahoma City Hospital (a/k/a Southwest \‘ledical Center) were negligent, in failing to detect the foreign body that was present; that the radiologists’ in question are employees ofthe Defendant hospitals and that any negligence by these radiologists was done in the course and scope of their employment with the Defendant hospitals.

5. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of these Defendants’ that she has incurred medical expenses; that she has suffered excruciating physical and mental pain; that the Plaintiff prays for damages in excess of $75,000.

6. Plaintiffs counsel would further state that he has obtained an expert report pursuant to Oklahoma law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against these Defendants for a sum in excess of $75,000; for court costs incurred herein; and for such other relief deemed just and proper by this Court.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION OF DEFENDANTS INTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, INC. AND INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION

COME NOW the Defendants INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center Corporation (“Defendants”), and answer the Plaintiff’s Amended Petition as follows:

1. Defendants deny each and every allegation, except that admitted below.

2. In response to Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition, while Defendants are unaware of Plaintiffs residency, we do not object to the venue or jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Defendants specifically deny the allegations in Paragraphs 4 and 5, together with the “WHEREFORE” paragraph of Plaintiffs Petition. Defendants specifically deny any negligence as to the named Defendants, as well as any of their agents or employees.

4. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Plaintiffs Amended Petition, the Defendants admit that CT scans were performed on the Plaintiff on August 17, 2009 at INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center and on October 20, 2009 at INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center. However, Defendants specifically deny the remaining allegations. Further, some allegations contained within Paragraph 2 of the Plaintiffs Amended Petition are not directed at these Defendants, and thus no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading may be deemed necessary, these allegations are also denied.

5. Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition is not directed at Defendants and thus no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading may be deemed necessary, these allegations are denied.

6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition does not call for a response from these Defendants and thus no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading may be deemed necessary, these allegations are denied.

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.

2. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts of third parties over whom these Defendants exercised no control.

3. For further answer or defense, this Defendant states that Plaintiffs damages claims are limited or restricted by the provisions of the Affordable Access to Health Care Act, 63 0.S. § 1- 1708.IA et seq.

4. Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff was caused by a pre-existing or postdeveloping medical condition, disease or illness, which was not caused by the acts of the Defendants.

5. As discovery is just beginning, Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer as more information is made known.

WHEREFORE, having answered, the Defendants, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and South Oklahoma City Hospital Corporation pray that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendants INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and South Oklahoma City Hospital Corporation be dismissed from this action, and that they be awarded their costs and fees in this action and any further relief the Court finds to be equitable.


DEFENDANT DR. GORN1CHEC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED PETITION

The Defendant Russell L. Gornichee, M.D. (“Dr. Gornichec”) submits Plaintiffs Amended Petition in the above number and styled cause, as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition sets forth legal conclusions to wltich Dr. Gornichee is not required to respond.

2. Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition sets forth allegations that Dr. Gornichec can neither admit nor deny as pled or contains allegations that are specifically denied.

3. Dr. Gornichec specifically denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

4. Pangraph 4 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition sets forth allegations pertaining to other parties to which Dr. Gornichec is not required to respond. To the extent Paragraph 4 sets forth allegations that suggest or imply that Dr. Gornichec deviated from accepted standards, those allegations are specifically denied. his Answer to 5. Dr. Gomichec specifically denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition sets forth allegations to which Dr. Gomichec is not required to respond.. Further, Dr. Gornichec specifically denies the request far relief set forth in the Wherefore Clause of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. Plaintiff fails to state any claims upon which relief can be granted..

8, Dr. Gornichec at all times met appropriate standards of care.

9. Dr. Gorniehec did not cause any injury to the Plaintiff.

10. To the extent Plaintiff suffered injury or damage as alleged, those were neither directly nor foresceabl y caused by Dr. Gornichec.

11. Plaintiff suffered from preexisting andJor subsequently developing conditions that Dr. Gornichec did not cause and over which he had no coniroh

12. Plaintiff suffered from physiological, anatomical, pathological md/or congenital anomalies that Dr. Gornichec did not cause and over which he had no control.

13. This case is at its inception. Dr. Gornichee reserves the right to include or delete defenses pending completion of discovery.

Having fully answered, Defendant Russell L. Gomiehec, M.D. respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Plaintiff, togethcr with all fees and costs incurred in defense of Plaintiffs claims and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable.


ANSWER

The defendant, Lynne Valerie Ozinga, M.D., (hereinafter “Defendant”) for answer to plaintiffs’ Petition filed herein, generally and specifically denies each material allegation contained therein except those hereinafter specifically admitted. Defendant specifically denies all statements and allegations of negligence and resulting surgery contained in plaintiffs’ Petition.

1. Lynne Valerie Ozinga, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendant admits that she reviewed the films of Amy Kanatzar.

3. Defendant specifically denies that there was negligence on her part that caused harm or injury to plaintiff.

4. Defendant alleges that at all times she used her best judgment in diagnosing and/or treating Amy Kanatzar.

5. Defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not the result of this Defendant’s negligence.

6. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a cause of action against Defendant.

7. This action is barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.

8. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused or contributed to by plaintiff or third persons over whom Defendant had no control.

9. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were the result of an unavoidable casualty or misfortune.

10. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by plaintiffs’ pre-existing or post- developing medical condition for which Defendant is not responsible.

11. Any damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff were caused by intervening or supervening causes for which Defendant had no control.

12. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages.

13. Plaintiff has failed to properly obtain service of process on this defendant and the Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over her.

14. Plaintiff has failed to fully comply with the Affordable Access to Health Care Act.

15. Plaintiffs claims are limited and/or barred by the Affordable Access to Health Care Act. Defendant reserves the right to further plead or amend her Answer including affirmative defenses as discovery proceeds in this matter.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of the Petition filed herein, and that Defendant be awarded her costs and such other just and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.

The Pre-Trial Order provided, in part:

* * *

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant lefi a piece of plastic tubing which had become infected, in the Plaintiff after an August 7, 2009 surgical procedure to remove a lap band port. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant’s care was substandard in treatment for the infection and by other actions relating to the insertion and removal of the lap band.

* * *

The Defendant states that his surgical and medical management of the Plaintiff were indicated and performed within the standard of care. Defendant denies that he caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages.

* * *

03-10-2014 CTFREE - 77762815 Mar 11 2014 9:03:29:400AM - $ 0.00 JUDGE B DIXON; AMY KANATZAR VS DR. RUSSELLGORNICHEC CJ2010-7919, CASE COMES ON FOR TRIAL. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH MICKY WATSON AND JERRY FRALEY. JEFF GLENDENING APPEARS WITH DEFENDANT. BOTH SIDES ANNOUNCE READY. JURORS SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 25 JURORS CALLED TO THE BOX. COURT CALLED TO THE BOX PROSPECTIVE JURORS EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JURY EXAMINATION BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND PASSED FOR CAUSE. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGS. ALL CHALLENGES CALLED 13 JURORS SWORN TO TRY CASE. COURTS INFORMATIVE COMMENT. OPENING STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. WITNESS SWORN TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL TUESDAY MARCH 11,2014 9:00, - PAM HARTWICK COURT REPORTER

03-11-2014 CTFREE - 77790288 Mar 12 2014 4:15:14:303PM - $ 0.00 JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL WEDNESDAY MARCH 12,2014 9:00, PAM HARTWICK - COURT REPORTER.

03-12-2014 CTFREE - 77790429 Mar 13 2014 4:23:48:203PM - $ 0.00 JUDGE B DIXON; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINTIFF REST DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESSES, CROSS EXAMINATION . DEFENDANT REST DEMURRER OVERRULED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL THURSDAY MARCH 13,2014. COURT REPORTER -PAM HARWICK

03-13-2014 CTFREE - 77805836 Mar 14 2014 9:54:10:540AM - $ 0.00 JUDGE B DIXON; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. DEFENDANT CONTINUES WITH EVIDENCE AND RESTED; PLAINTIFF RESTED; PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT MOVED FOR DIRECTED VERDICT - OVERRULED; INSTRUCTIONS SETTLED, VERDICT FORMS APPROVED; JURY INSTRUCTED; CLOSING ARGUMENT; JURY DELIBERATES ALTERNATIVE EXCUSED; JURY RETURN VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT COURT ACCEPTS VERDICT, GRANTED JUDGMENT AND EXCUSES JURY. COURT REPORTER - PAM HARTWICK

Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice as to Dr. Lynne Valerie Ozinga, M.D. and Integris. Jury verdict in favor of Dr. Gornichec, M.D.

Plaintiff's Experts: Dr. Owen Cramer, Houston, Texas, surgeon

Defendant's Experts: Dr. Kevin Fisher, Tulsa, Oklahoma, surgeon

Comments: