Date: 08-11-2013

Case Style: Patricia Frausto v. Jamie Wilson

Case Number: CJ-2011-4476

Judge: Barbara G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Billy D. Griffin, Jeremy D. Looper and Jason B. Reynolds

Defendant's Attorney: Bart A. Chancellor

Description: Patricia Frausto, individually and as parent and next friend of Vanessa Hernandez, Crystal Hernandez, and May Hernandez, minors, sued Jamie Wilson on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. On or about August 4, 2009, Plaintiff Patricia Frausto was driving a vehicle in which Plaintiffs Vanessa, Crystal, and Mary were passengers when they were struck by Defendant’s vehicle. The collision occurred near the intersection of N.W. 4th and Classen, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

2. The collision described above was a direct result of the negligence of Defendant Jaime Wilson in that she failed to exercise reasonable care in operating the vehicle she was driving.

3. That as a result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff Patricia Frausto has incurred property damage, medical expenses both for her and her minor children, loss of earnings, physical pain and suffering, and mental pain and suffering.

4. That the minor Plaintiffs have incurred physical pain and suffering as well as mental pain and suffering, and loss of time from school.

5. That as a result of the above-reference acts, the Plaintiffs have been damaged
in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus interest, costs,
and all other relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Jamie Wilson appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures and damages, if any.

5. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of pre-existing health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant is not liable.

6. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this defendant and for which this defendant is not liable.

7. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

8. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and reserves the right to amend her answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant prays that Plaintiffs’ Petition be dismissed and Plaintiffs take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

Outcome: Settlement approved by the Court and case dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: