Date: 10-31-2013

Case Style: Linda Barnett v. Theodore Ruff, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2011-10106

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry Tawwater, Darren Tawwater, David N. Mayo

Defendant's Attorney: Hilton H. Walters and Neel K. Natarajan for Theodore Ruff and Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, PLLC

John R. Paul for Medwest Regional Medical Center, LLC and Health Management Associates, Inc.

Description: Linda Barnett, individually and as surviving spounse of Mark Bennett, deceased, and Linda Barnett on behalf of Minor Child A and on behalf of Minor Child B sued Theodore Ruff, M.D., Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, PLLC, Health Management Associates, Inc., and Midwest Regional Medical Center, LLC, on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

1. On November 9, 2011, Mark Barnett died as a result of negligent medical treatment rendered below the standard of care by Defendants, inc tuding care and treatment rendered by and through each of Defendants’ agents, servants and employees. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs anu Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

2. Defendants individually, and acting by and through their agents nd employees, herein failed to inform Plaintiff and Mark Barnett of the material ri &s involved in the course of treatment rendered to him; failed to inform Plaintiff and Mark Barnett of alternative treatments, or the option of no treatment by Defendants, and the reasonably foreseeable material risks of each alternative, including no treatment by Defendants; and that Plaintiff and Mark Barnett would have chosen a different course of treatment, or no treatment by Defendants, had the alternative and material risks of each been made known, including the option of no treatment by Defendants. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs anc Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

3. Mark Barnett sustained fatal injuries which were caused by an act, omission, or instrumentality which was under the exclusive control and management of Defendants; that the events causing the injuries and death of Mark Barnett were of a kind which ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of Defendants. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

4. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant, Theodore Ruff, M.D., was the agent, servant and employee of Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, P.L.L.C., rendering Defendants, Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, P.L.L.C. vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for their damages.

5. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant, Theodore Ruff, M.D., was privileged, credentialed and otherwise entrusted to cate and treat the patients of Defendant, Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, P.L.L.C.

6. Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, P,L.L.C. was negligent in retaining, supervising, privileging and otherwise entrusting the care and ttatment of its patients to Defendant, Theodore Ruff. M.D. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

7. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant, Eheodore Ruff, M.D., was privileged, credentialed and otherwise entrusted to caie and treat the patients of Defendant, Midwest Regional Medical Center, L.L.C.

8. Midwest Regional Medical Center, L.L.C. was negligent in retaining, supervising, privileging and otherwise entrusting the care and treatment of its patients to Defendant, Theodore Ruff, M.D. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

9. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant, Midwest Regional
Medical Center, L.L.C. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delbndant, Health
Management Associates, Inc., rendering Defendant, Health Management
Associates, Inc., vicariously liable for the conduct of Defendant, Midwest
Regional Medical Center, L.L.C.

10. Defendant, Health Management Associates, Inc., owns 59 hospitals across the United States with 8,900 licensed beds under its control and genei ated more than $5.1 billion in net revenue during 2010.

11. As owner and operator of Midwest Regional Medical Center, Del ëndant, Health Management Associates, Inc., actively supervises and controls the activity at Midwest Regional Medical Center including “dynamic hospital aHd home office leadership.”

12. Defendant, Health Management Associates, Inc., acting through its agents, servants and employees was negligent in providing medical care to Mark Barnett and was negligent in supervising, training and entrusting the care o patients to the employees of Midwest Regional Medical Center. The conduct of Defendant, Health Management Associates, Inc., resulted in injuries to Plairtiffs and Mark Barnett as set forth below.

13. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant, Theodore Ruff, M.D., was privileged, credentialed and otherwise entrusted to care and treat the patients of Defendant, Health Management Associates, Inc., at Midwest Regional Medical Center.

14. Health Management Associates, Inc. was negligent in retaining, supervising, privileging and otherwise entrusting the care and treatment of its patients to Defendant, Theodore Ruff, M.D. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Mark Barnett suffered damages as set forth below.

15. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mark Barnett sustained severe personal injuries, suffered severe physical and emotional pain and suflèring, incurred medical bills, and died, resulting in damages in an amouni in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

16. At the time of his death, Mark Barnett was 50 years old with a lift expectancy of
28,99 years.

17. As a further result of Defendants’ conduct, Linda Barnett, surviiing spouse of Mark Barnett, suffered damage due to the loss of service, society, companionship, support, contributions, and consortium of her husband and claims damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fets, and costs.

18. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Minor Child A has suffered tile loss of care, services, support, and companionship of her father, Mark Barnelt; and suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

19. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Minor Child B has suffered the loss of care, services, support, and companionship of her father, Mark Barneti; and suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

20. Defendants’ conduct was done in reckless disregard of the rights cf Mark Barnctt for which Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendants in excess of
$75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, cad of them in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and my other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

Defendant Theodore Ruff, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. Dr. Ruff denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in plaintiffs petition, except such allegations as are hereinafter specificaHy
admitted.

2. Dr. Ruff denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18,
19 and 20 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition.

3. In response to paragraph 4 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition, Dr. Ruff
admits he was a partner member of Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, PLLC (“SSO”) at the
time of his care and treatment of Mark Barnett. Dr. Ruff denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph of plaintiffs’ first amended petition as they apply to him.

4. In response to paragraph 5 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition it is denied as SSO does not grant privileges or credential its member physicians to provide care and treatment at healthcare facilities.

5. In response to paragraphs 7 and 13 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition Dr. Ruff admits he was privileged and credentialed to treat patients at Midwest Regional Medical Center at the time of his care and treatment of Mark Barnett.

6. The allegations contained in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition do not pertain to Dr. Ruff and therefore no response is called for. To the extent the allegations do pertain to Dr. Ruff, he is without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in those paragraphs.

7. Dr. Ruff denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 12 and 14 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition to the extent they apply to Dr. Ruff.

8. In regard to paragraph 16 of plaintiffs’ first amended petition Dr. Ruff admits Mark Barnett was approximately 50 years old at the time of his death. Dr. Ruff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

9. Dr. Ruff denies the remaining allegations contained in plaintiffs’ first amended petition.

10. Dr. Ruff specifically denies that he was negligent in any manner or at any time in his care and treatment of Mark Barnett. Dr. Ruffs care and treatment of Mark Barnett was
at all times and in every manner proper and within the standard of applicable care.

11. Dr. Ruff specifically denies that any act or omission on his part in the care and treatment of Mark Barnett was the proximate cause of any injury to Mark Barnett or the plaintiffs.

12. Dr. Ruff specifically denies that Mark Barnett or the plaintiffs sustained any injury or suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on Dr. Ruffs part.

13. Discovery being incomplete, Dr. Ruff specifically reserves the right to amend his answer or to add any affirmative defense as more information becomes available.

Affirmative Defenses

For affirmative defenses, Dr. Ruff alleges and states:

14. Plaintiffs’ first amended petition fails to state a claim against Dr. Ruff on any ground upon which relief can be granted.

15. Any injury allegedly suffered by Mark Barnett was caused by a pre-existing unrelated medical condition of Mark Bamett, for which Dr. Ruff is not responsible.

16. Any injury allegedly suffered by Mark Bamett as a result of the surgery were not caused by any negligence of Dr. Ruff in the performance of the surgery, but rather were caused by unanticipated and unavoidable complications of the procedure resulting from the underlying disease of Mark Barnett and his anatomic or physiologic condition, for which Dr. Ruff is not responsible.

17. Defendant has no duty to disclose risks that were already known to Mark Barnett or which commonly understood by the average person.

18. Mark Barnett was not injured by an undisclosed risk as a result of submitting
to Dr. Ruffs treatment.

19. No action or omission of Dr. Ruff was malicious, willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent or intentional and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is barred.

20. Any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Dr. Ruff prays that the plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their petition and that Dr. Ruff be dismissed herein with his costs.

Defendant Surgical Specialists of Oklahoma, PLLC appeared and answered as follows:

1. SSO denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in plaintiffs second amended petition, except such allegations as are hereinafter specifically admitted.

2. 550 denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Il, 12,
14, 17, 19, 37, 38, 39, 40,41, 43, 44, and 45 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition.

3. In response to paragraph 9 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition, SSO states that Dr. Ruff was a partner member of SSO at the time of his care and treatment of Mark Bamett. SSO denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph of plaintiffs’ second amended petition.

4. In response to paragraph 10 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition it is denied as SSO does not grant privileges or credential its member physicians to provide care and treatment at healthcare facilities.

5. In response to paragraphs 13 and 16 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition SSO admits Dr. Ruff was privileged and credentialed to treat patients at Midwest Regional Medical Center at the time of his care and treatment of Mark Barnett.

6. The allegations contained in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition do not pertain to SSO and therefore no response is called for. To the extent the allegations do pertain to SSO, it is without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in those paragraphs.

7. In regard to paragraph 41 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition SSO admits Mark Barnett was approximately 50 years old at the time of his death. SSO is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

8. The allegations contained in paragraph 3, 34 are vague and therefore SSO is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.

9. The allegations contained paragraph 24 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition make a legal conclusion and therefore no response is called for by SSO. To the extent a response is required SSO denies the allegations in these paragraphs.

10. The allegations contained in paragraphs 15, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and
30 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition do not pertain to SSO and therefore no response is called for.

11. SSO is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the aHegations contained in paragraphs 22 and 23 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition.

12. The allegations contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition are vague. To the extent understood SSO admits plaintiffs have requested information from SSO regarding the medical care of Mark Barnett after filing this lawsuit.

13. The allegations contained in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs’ second amended petition are vague and therefore SSO is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. Further, SSO objects to the allegations contained in this paragraph to the extent a response would invade applicable privileges.

14. SSO denies the remaining allegations contained in plaintiffs’ second amended petition.

15. SSO specifically denies that Mark Barnett or the plaintiffs sustained any injury or suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on the part of SSO, its agents, servants, partner members, or employees.

16. Discovery being incomplete, SSO specifically reserves the right to amend his answer or to add any affirmative defense as more information becomes available.

Affirmative Defenses

For affirmative defenses, SSO alleges and states:

18. Plaintiffs’ second amended petition fails to state a claim against SSO on any
ground upon which relief can be granted.

19. Any injury allegedly suffered by Mark Barnett was caused by a pre-existing unrelated medical condition of Mark Bamett, for which SSO, its agents, servants, partner members, or employees are not responsible.

20. Any injury allegedly suffered by Mark Barnett as a result of the surgery were not caused by any negligence of SSO, its agents, servants, partner members, or employees, but rather were caused by unanticipated and unavoidable complications of the procedure resulting from the underlying disease of Mark Barnctt and his anatomic or physiologic condition, for which SSO, its agents, servants or employees are not responsible.

21. Defendant has no duty to disclose risks that were already known to Mark Barnett or which commonly understood by the average person.

22. Mark Barnett was not injured by an undisclosed risk as a result of submitting to treatment.

23. No action or omission of SSO, its agents, servants, partner members, or employees was malicious, willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent or intentional and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is barred.

24. Any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

WHEREFORE, having answered, SSO prays that the plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their petition and that SSO be dismissed herein with its costs.

Defendant Midwest Regional Medical Center appeared and answered as follows:

1. Admits that Mark Damett died on November 9, 2011; except as specifically admitted the allegations in numerical Paragraph 1 are denied.

2. The allegations in numerical Paragraph 2 are denied.

3. Admits that the Hospital is subject to and follows state and federal laws/regulations/codes; otherwise without specific references, this Defendant is unable to admit or deny the allegations in numerical Paragraph 3.

4. The allegations in numerical Paragraphs 4 through 8, inclusive, are denied.

5. The allegations in numerical Paragraphs 9 through 11, inclusive, relate to another defendant and no response is required; in the alternative, those allegations are denied for lack of informati on.

6. The allegations in numerical Paragraph 12 are denied.

7. Admits that Theodore Ruff, M.D. had/has surgical privileges in the field of general surgery at the Hospital per the specific terms of the privileges credentialed.; except as spceiticall.y admitted there remaining allegations of numerical Paragraph 13 are denied.

8. The allegations in numerical Paragraphs 13 and 17, inclusive, are denied.

9. Unable to admit or deny whether Mark Barnett had a physician/patient relationship with Theodore Ruff, M.D. prior to November 4, 2011; all remaining allegations of numerical Paragraph 18 are denied,

10. The allegations in numerical Paragraphs 19 through 24, inclusive, are denied.

11. For responsc to numcrical Paragraphs 25 through 30, inclusive, the Hospital admits that for some years it has maintained a website with various information available, that website changes from time to time, without specific copies of the actual website stated, the Hospital is unable to admit or deny the cited quotations alleged in Paragraphs
25 through 30, i.ncusive; otherwise, denied.
12, The allegations in numerical Paragraphs 31 through 33, inclusive, relate to a separate defendan.t and rio response
is required; otherwise, denied,

13. Without specific references to any state/federal law as alleged, the Hospital is unable to respond to the allegations of numerical Paragraph 34; otherwise, denied,4. Admits that prior to and since the filing of the lawsuit the Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys have requested information from the Defendants, mostly through pre-trial discovery, and the Hospital has responded. accordingly by providing all medical records and has/will provide additional materials with appropriate redactions per Court Order; except as specifically admitted the remaining allegations of numerical Paragraphs 35 and 36 are denied.

15. The allegations of numerical Paragraphs 37 through 39, inclusive, are denied.

16. The allegations of numerical Paragraph 40 are denied.

17. Admits that Mark Bamett was 50 years of age at the time of death; the remaining allegations of numerical Paragraph 41 are denied. for lack of information.

18. The allegations of numerical paragraphs 42 through 45, inclusive, are denied.

19. For further answer and defense, and pleading in. the alternative only, if need there be, thi.s Defendant states:

a. Any claims by the Plaintiffs are limited by the provisions of 12 O.S.A.
§ 1-1708.1(D), 23 O.S.A. § 15,23 O.S.A. § 612, and 12 O.S.A. § 3009.1,
and other related provisions thereto;

b. Conduct of Independent Third Parties;

c. Intervening Cause; d, Assumption of Risk;

e. Pre-existing Condition; I Unavoidable Incident;

g. Lack of Causation;

1-i. Failure to state a claim for relief that can be granted as to each cause;

i. At all times relevant hereto this Defendant exercised the appropriate standard, of care;

20. Defendant Hospital reserves the right to further plead or answer at the completion of pre-trial discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant Midwest Regional Medical Center prays that the Plaintiffs take nothing by way of the Second Amended Petition; for judnent in favor of this Defendant and against Plaintiffs; for attorneys’ fees and court costs as allowed by law; for such other and further relief as is just and equitable.

Outcome: MOTION FOR PARTIAL SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION - SUSTAINED, ORDER SIGNED

JOINT APPLICATION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (FILED UNDER SEAL)
Document Available (SEALED DOCUMENT)

ORDER JUDGE L. DAVIS (FILED UNDER SEAL)
Document Available (SEALED DOCUMENT)

ORDER JUDGE L. DAVIS (FILED UNDER SEAL)
Document Available (SEALED DOCUMENT)

ORDER JUDGE L. DAVIS (FILED UNDER SEAL)

Dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: