Date: 09-06-2012

Case Style: Eddie Joe Teague v. Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital

Case Number: CJ-2011-6390

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoam

Plaintiff's Attorney: Paul Boudeaux

Defendant's Attorney: Mike Barkley, Fred Will DeMier and Jeff L. Wilson for Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc.

Tim Pool for Clayton Christopher Lewis

Description: Eddie Joe Teague, surviving spouse and special administrator of the Estate of Jessica Teague fka Jessica Toman, decased, sued Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital and Clayton Christopher Lewis on medical negligence theories.

The claims made by Plaintiff are not available.

Clayton Christopher Lewis Answered as follows:

COMES NOW the Defendant, Clayton Christopher Lewis, by and through his attorney of record, Tilman Pool, and for his
Answer to the Petition herein filed on the 28 day of October, 2011
states

1. That this Defendant generally and specifically denies
strict proof thereof each and every allegation contained therein and demands

2 That this Defendant respectfully prays this Court grat4t
Plaintiff nothing by way of their request for relief as
stated.

DEFENDANT’S CROSS PETITION

That the allegations of this Petition as to this Defendant are without proof and filed maliciously or with wanton disregard for the truth of the allegations and proximately inflicted emotional distress upon this Defendant, and caused unnecessary expense to defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays the Plaintiff take nothing based upon allegations presented herein and that this Court grant unto Defendant, as against the Plaintiff judgment for damages and costs incurred and occurring herein.


Laureate Psychiatric Hospital Answered as follows:

COMES NOW Defendant, Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc., hereinafter “Laureate,” and for its Answer to Plaintiffs Petition, states as follows:

All allegations not herein specifically admitted or denied are hereby denied.

1. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant Laureate admits it is an Oklahoma corporation doing business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. As to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiff’s Petition, these allegations are not explicitly directed toward this Defendant; thus, Defendant Laureate is without sufficient information to admit or deny. To the exteni any of the allegations in this paragraph are directed toward this Defendant, the allegations are denied.

2. Defendant Laureate denies the allegations contained in Paragraph II of Plaintiff’s Petition. Further, Ms. Toman’s medical records will speak for themselves as to the remaining allegations of the same Paragraph.

3. Defendant Laureate denies Plaintiff’s Paragraph III.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendant Laureate denies that any of its agents, servants or employees was negligent in any way concerning the care and treatment of Ms. Toman.

2. Plaintiffs allegations are not numbered but improperly set forth in block paragraphs. Plaintiffs Petition violates 12 OS. § 20 10(B) and should be dismissed.

3. Defendant Laureate denies that it was negligent in the care and treatment of Ms. Toman and further states that the manner in which Defendant Laureate’s agents, servants, or employees treated and cared for Ms. ‘foman at all times met or exceeded the appropriate standard of care.

4. Defendant Laureate denies that any of its agents, servants or employees was negligent in any way concerning the hiring, retention and/or screening of Clayton C. Lewis.

5. Defendant Laureate denies it conspired to hide any conduct.

6. Plaintiff fails to allege the elements of a viable civil conspiracy claim. Accordingly, said claim should be dismissed pursuant to 12 0.5. § 2012(B)(6).

7. Plaintiff did not assert a civil conspiracy claim in his first lawsuit. Accordingly, his conspiracy claim is not saved by 12 OS. § 100 and is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

8. Any and all claims not asserted in the first lawsuit but asserted in this refiled action are not saved by 12 OS. § 100 and are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

9. Plaintiff is precluded from recovering medical bills that have been paid by a third party and for which the third party does not possess, claim, demand or assert a right of subrogation or recovery. In this regard, Defendant reserves the right under 63 O.S. §1-1708.1D to strike any and all evidence of payment of any medical bills for which there is no claim, demand, or right of subrogation or recovery.

Plaintiff responed to Defendant Lewis' Cross Petition as follows:

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Eddie Joe Teague, and for Answer to the Cross-Petition (Counterclaim) of the Defendant,
Clayton Christopher Lewis, alleges and states as follows:

Plaintiff denies that Defendant’s Cross-Petition states a cause of action or inference of a cause of action against him and alleges that it should be dismissed.

For further Answer, Plaintiff denies the material allegations of Defendant’s Cross Petition and re-alleges the allegations contained in his Petition.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Plaintiff requests Judgment on Defendant’s Cross-P etitiãji (Counter-Claim), asks that the Defendant take nothing by way of said Cross-Petition and that Plaintiff be awarded his costs and attorney fees incurred pursuant to Rule 11 as a result of Defendant’s frivolous pleading and other applicable statutory law.


c)
pleading and other applicable statutory law.



10. Alleged damages of the Plaintiff and/or the decedent, if any, were caused by the acts of third parties who were not agents or employees of the Defendant.

11. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

12. Lack of causation.

13. Punitive damages are inapplicable and inappropriate in this lawsuit and are unconstitutional.

14. Defendant Clayton Lewis was acting outside the scope of his employment. Accordingly, Defendant is not liable for the alleged acts or omissions of Defendant Clayton Lewis.

15. This Defendant adopts and asserts any affirmative defenses raised or asserted by other defendants to this action that are also applicable to this Defendant.

16. Plaintiff consented to the sexual contact complained of in the Petition.

17. Plaintiffs non-economic damages are subject to any applicable statutory cap or limitation.

18. Plaintiff is not the proper party plaintiff to assert this action. A survival action can only asserted by the duly appointed personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The order appointing Plaintiff as special administrator of Jessica Teague/Toman’s estate does not give Plaintiff the authority to assert or maintain the present lawsuit. This action should be dismissed.

19. A surviving spouse does not have the authority to assert a survival action. Accordingly, the claim of Eddie Joe Teague as “surviving spouse” of Jessica league! Toman should be dismissed.

20. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on his own personal behalf based on the alleged injuries to Jessica Teague/Toman.

21. Plaintiff is barred from recovering alleged loss of consortium damages since he was not married to Jessica Teague/Toman at the time of the alleged incident referenced in the Petition.

22. Settlement/compromise.

23. Plaintiff dismissed the previous case on October 28, 2011, in order to avoid proceedings pending at that time. Plaintiff re-filed the present case on the same date. Pursuant to 12 0.5. § 684 and/or 684.1, this Court should order Plaintiff to pay the costs of the action and stay this matter until said costs have been frilly satisfied.

24. This action must be dismissed pursuant to 12 0.S. § 19. Plaintiff failed to comply with 12 0.5. § 19 since the Petition was filed on October 31, 2011, without the requisite affidavit and Plaintiff has failed to ask for and/or receive an extension from the Court to file an affidavit. In this regard, the purported affidavit filed by Plaintiff should
be stricken.
25. Defendant Laureate specifically reserves the right to amend or modify its
answer upon completion of discovery

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: