Date: 10-11-2012
Case Style: Dorothy Markley v. St. John Medical Center
Case Number: CJ-2011-4979
Judge: Carlos Chappelle
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ken Ray Underwood
Defendant's Attorney: James W. Connor and Linsey Elizabeth Williams for Matthew G. Powers, M.D. and Power Radiology, P.C.
Sidney J. Smith for St. John Medical Center
Christian Scott Huckaby for Angiodynamics, Inc.
Description: Dorothy Markley and James Wesley Markley, deceased, sued St. John Medical Center, Matthew G. Powers, m.D., Power Radiology, P.C. and Angiodynamics, Inc. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) wrongful death theories.
Plaintiffs claimed that decedent was harmed during a liver ablation procedure performed on James Markley on September 10, 2009 at St. John Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Markley died as a result of substandard care negligently provided to him by the defendants.
Defendants Matthew G. Powers, M.D. and Powers Radiology, P.C. answered as follows:
1. Based on present information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations cont4ied in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
2. Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition is not directed at Defendant Powers or Defendant Powers Radiology, P.C. and therefore no response is required.
3. Based on present information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contaiiied in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.
4. Defendants admit that Powers Radiology, P.C. is a Professional Corporation operating within the city limits of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
5. Defendants admit that James Markley suffered bum injuries to both of his thighs during a liver ablation procedure performed on September 10, 2009. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
6. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition.
7. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
8. Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition is not directed at Defendant Powers or Defendant Powers Radiology, P.C. and therefore no response is required.
9. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
10. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
11. Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 11; therefore, Paragraph 11 of the Plaintiffs Petition is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
By way of further answer, but not in diminution or derogation of the admissions or denials hereinabove set forth, and subject to amendment at the conclusion of all pretrial discovery, Defendants do allege and state as follows:
1. The defenses set forth in 12 OS. §2012.
2. These Defendants claim all limitations on damages afforded by Oklahoma law including all sections under 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1 ("A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, in any medical liability action in which the health care services at issue were provided for:
1. Pregnancy or labor and delivery, including the immediate post-partum period; or
2. Emergency care in the emergency room of a hospital or as follow-up to the emergency care services provided in the emergency room;
the amount of noneconomic damages awarded shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of actions brought with respect to the personal injury.
B. Where the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed negligence in one of the types of cases enumerated in subsection A of this section, the court shall articulate its findings into the record out of the presence of the jury and shall lift the noneconomic damage cap.
C. Nothing in this section shall apply to any nursing facility or nursing home licensed pursuant to Section 1-1903 of this title or the owners, operators, officers, agents or employees of such entities.
D. Nothing in this section shall apply to a medical liability action brought for wrongful death.
E. This section of law shall terminate on November 1, 2010")
3. Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4. At all material times herein, Defendants met or exceeded all applicable standards of care.
5. Defendants deny that they or any of their agents, servants or employees were negligent in any way or manner concerning the care, diagnosis or treatment of James Wesley Markley.
6. Defendants deny that they are collectively or individually liable for any acts or omissions of other parties, whether named or not.
7. Any injuries or damages to Plaintiff were not the direct and proximate cause of any act or omission on the part of the Defendants.
8. The alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of any injuries the Plaintiff has suffered.
9. The alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the death of James Markley.
10. Any injuries the Plaintiff complains of were the natural and probable consequences of Plaintiff’s physical conditions over which these Defendants had no control nor could have prevented and any injuries or damages which Plaintiff may have sustained were not the result of negligence, but were instead the result of natural or other occurrances not within these Defendants’ control.
11. Any injuries the Plaintiff has suffered were caused by a preexisting or post developing, unrelated medical condition, disease, illness, infection or injury for which these Defendants are not responsible.
12. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses revealed in the course of discovery.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, having filly answered the Petition of Plaintiff on file, these Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant judgment for said Defendants and against the Plaintiff upon Plaintiffs claims, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Outcome: COMES NOW Plaintiff Dorothy Markley, as surviving Spouse and next of kin of James Wesley Markley, deceased, by and through her counsel of record, Ken Ray Underwood, and hereby dismisses all claims and causes of action asserted herein against Defendant St. John Medical Center WITH PREJUDICE.
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Dorothy Markicy, as surviving spouse and next of kin to James Wesley Markley, and hereby dismissal all claims asserted against Defendants Matthew 0. Powers M.D. and Powers Radiology, P.C., in the above styled and numbered action with prejudice to the refilling thereof Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
