Date: 05-12-2013

Case Style: Jeff Lawson v. Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Med-X Drug Store 6116

Case Number: CJ-2011-6413

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas Martin Askew

Defendant's Attorney: Amy E. Bradley-Waters and Malinda Matlock for Med-X Corporation, Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. and Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc.

Description: Jeff Lawson and Christie Lawson sued Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Med X Drug Store 6116, Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. and Med X Corporation on medical negligence (medical malpractice pharmacy malpractice) theories claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a direct result on a failure to exercise due care on the part of Defendants' agents or employees. The specifics of the claimed made by the Plaintiff are not available.

Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. and Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Med-X Drug Store #6116 appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendants deny both generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

2. Based upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. Based upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

9. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

10. Based upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

11. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

13. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

14. Defendants readopt and restate their responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

15. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore deny the same.

16. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

18, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

19. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

20. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

21. Defendants readopt and restate their responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition,

22. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

23. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

25. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

26. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

27. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

28. Defendants readopt and restate their responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

29. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

30. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

31. Defendants readopt and restate their responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

32. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demand strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against these Defendants.

2. These Defendants are not proper parties to this lawsuit and should be dismissed.

3. These Defendants were not in privity with the Plaintiffs.

4. These Defendants owed no duty of care to the Plaintiffs.

5. Should Defendants be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, Defendants state that their negligence was not the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, if any.

6. Defendants state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiffs were solely and proximately caused by the contributory negligence of Plaintiffs, and as such, Plaintiffs are barred from recovery as against Defendants by virtue of the Oklahoma law of contributory negligence.

7. Plaintiffs’ comparative negligence bars any action against these Defendants.

8. For flirther defense, Defendants allege and state that any injuries and damages complained of in Plaintiffs’ Petition are the natural, probable and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of Plaintiff Jacob Lawson, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiffs may have sustained were not the result of any acts or omissions on Defendants’ part, and that any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiffs were the result of natural and normal occurrences within the body of Jacob Lawson over which these Defendants had no control, and for which Defendants are not responsible.

9. Defendants further allege that the damages and/or problems alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Petition are the result of a preexisting condition of Jacob Lawson and are unrelated to the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit.

10. Defendants would state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiffs were solely and proximately caused by the intentional acts and/or negligence of third persons who were not agents, servants, or employees of Defendants and over whom Defendants exercised no degree of authority or control.

11. Defendants deny the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

12. Defendants would assert that the Plaintiffs’ medical treatment and expenses for injuries they allege were not reasonable or necessary.

13, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of 12 O.S. § 19.

14. For further answer or defense, Defendants state that the facts of this case do not warrant a punitive damage instruction.

15. For further answer or defense, Defendants state that Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages should be stricken on the following grounds.

A, Consideration of any punitive damages in this civil action would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that:

i. Consideration of punitive damages in this action would allow standardless discretion to the jury to determine punishment, depriving Defendants of prior notice of the consequences of their alleged actions.

ii. The admission of any evidence directly to the jury concerning Defendants’ assets or net worth will create an undue risk of an improper

verdict on each issue concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award punitive damages, and the measure of punitive damages.

iii, Punitive damages by their very nature constitute punishment and are a quasi-criminal sanction for which the burden of proof should not be less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” -- not merely “clear and convincing evidence” or a “preponderance of the evidence.”

B. An award of punitive damages, if allowed, would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that punitive damages would constitute an excessive fine upon Defendants.

C. Punitive damages are punishment, a quasi-criminal sanction, for which Defendants are not afforded the specific procedural safeguards prescribed by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

16. In the alternative, Defendants assert the applicability of any punitive damages cap statute including 23 O.S. § 9.1.

17. For further Answer or defense, Defendants assert that any award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants is barred to the extent that it is inconsistent with the standards and limitations set forth in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003).

18. If there are any material allegations which Defendants have not denied which adversely affect its rights, it is here and now denied the same.

19. Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend this Answer to include additional affirmative defenses upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Petition of the Plaintiffs on file herein, Defendants Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. and Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. dlb/a Med-X Drug Store #6116 respectfully request that this Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, that judgment be rendered in their favor together with costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief to which they may be entitled.


Med-X Corporation appeared and answered as follows:

1. Med-X denies both generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

2. Based upon information and belief, Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. Based upon information and belief, Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

4. In regards to Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Med-X admits that it is a company engaged in filling prescriptions and the retail sale of prescribed medications. Med-X further admits that it operates a pharmacy, #6116, at 4016 S. Highway 97, Sand Springs, Oklahoma 74063.

5. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

6, Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

7. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof

8. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

9. Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

10. Based upon information and belief, Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

11. Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

12. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

13. Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

14. Med-X readopts and restates its responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

15. Med-X is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore denies the same.

16. Med-X admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

17. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof demands strict proof thereof.

25. Med-X denies the allegations

26. Med-X denies the allegations

27. Med-X denies the allegations

28. Med-X readopts and restates 1-26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

29. Med-X denies the allegations

30. Med-X denies the allegations

31, Med-X readopts and restates 1-29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. Plaintiffs’ Petition. of Plaintiffs’ Petition and contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. its responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. its responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs

18. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of

19. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 demands strict proof thereof.

20. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

21. Med-X readopts and restates its responses to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

22. Med-X denies the demands strict proof thereof

23. Med-X denies the demands strict proof thereof

24. Med-X denies the

allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and

32. Med-X denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Med-X,

2. Should Med-X be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, Med-X states that its negligence was not the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, if any.

3. Med-X states that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiffs were solely and proximately caused by the contributory negligence of Plaintiffs, and as such, Plaintiffs are barred from recovery as against Med-X by virtue of the Oklahoma law of contributory negligence.

4. Plaintiffs’ comparative negligence bars any action against Med-X.

5. For further defense, Med-X alleges and states that any injuries and damages complained of in Plaintiffs’ Petition are the natural, probable and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of Plaintiff Jacob Lawson, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiffs may have sustained were not the result of any acts or omissions on the part of Med-X; that any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiffs were the result of natural and normal occurrences within the body of Jacob Lawson over which Med-X had no control, and for which Med-X is not responsible.

6. Med-X further alleges that the damages and/or problems alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Petition are the result of a preexisting condition of Jacob Lawson and are unrelated to the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit.

7. Med-X would state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiffs were solely and proximately caused by the intentional acts and/or negligence of third persons who were not agents, servants, or employees of Med-X and over whom Med-X exercised no degree of authority or control.

8. Med-X denies the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

9. Med-X would assert that the Plaintiffs’ medical treatment and expenses for injuries they allege were not reasonable or necessary.

10. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of 12 0.S. § 19.

11. For further answer or defense, Med-X states that the facts of this case do not warrant a punitive damage instruction.

12. For further answer or defense, Med-X states that Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages should be stricken on the following grounds.

A. Consideration of any punitive damages in this civil action would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that:

i. Consideration of punitive damages in this action would allow standardless discretion to the jury to determine punishment, depriving Med-X of prior notice of the consequences of its alleged actions.

ii. The admission of any evidence directly to the jury concerning Med-X’s assets or net worth will create an undue risk of an improper verdict on each issue concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award punitive damages, and the measure of punitive damages.

iii. Punitive damages by their very nature constitute punishment and are a quasi-criminal sanction for which the burden of proof should not be less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” -- not merely “clear and convincing evidence” or a “preponderance of the evidence.”

B. An award of punitive damages, if allowed, would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that punitive damages would constitute an excessive fine upon Med-X.

C. Punitive damages are punishment, a quasi-criminal sanction, for which Med-X is not afforded the specific procedural safeguards prescribed by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

13. In the alternative, Med-X asserts the applicability of any punitive damages cap statute including 23 0.5. § 9.1.

14. For further Answer or defense, Med-X asserts that any award of punitive or exemplary damages against Med-X is barred to the extent that it is inconsistent with the standards and limitations set forth in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003).

15. If there are any material allegations which Med-X has not denied which adversely affect its rights, it is here and now denied the same.

16. Med-X specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer to include additional affirmative defenses upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Petition of the Plaintiffs on file herein, Med-X Corporation respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, that judgment be rendered in its favor together with costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief to which it may be entitled.

Plaintiffs’ counsel identified the following individuals as Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses:

Willie Jay Higgins

Marilyn Culp

G. Steven Miller

Dr. Alan Conger

Representative of St. Francis Health Systems

Representative from OU Physicians

Dr. Warlick

Employees of Defendants that participated in handling of Jake Lawson’s prescriptions and/or conversations with Christy Lawson including, but not limited to, the conversation believed to have occurred on or about May 18, 2010

Thomas F. Egan, Pharm.D.

Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' expert witnesses.

Plaintiffs settled with the Defendants and sought approval of the settlement by the Court by seeking approval of compromise settlement, as follows:

On this /71Z day of April, 2013, this matter comes on for hearing on the Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Settlement Agreement Involving a Minor. Plaintiffs appear in person with their attorney, Thomas Askew. Defendants appear through their attorney, Amy Bradley-Waters. Having heard the testimony of the Plaintiffs and the statements of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds:

1. The Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Settlement Agreement Involving a Minor is hereby approved by the Court as being fair and in the best interests of the minor, Jacob Lawson.

2. The sum of $25,000.00 shall be paid to Plaintiffs on behalf of Defendants as apportioned in paragraphs 3 through 6.

3. The sum of $19,000.00 shall be paid to Jeff Lawson and Christie Lawson for Jacob’s medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress, and attorney’s fees and expenses; and

4. The sum of $6,000.00 shall be paid to Jeff Lawson and Christie Lawson to hold in trust for the benefit of Jacob Lawson.

5. The sum of $6,000.00 shall be paid to the Plaintiffs, as parents and next friends of Jacob Lawson, a minor. In accordance with 12 O.S. § 83, the sum of $6,000.00 shall be deposited into IBC Bank, a banking institution hereby approved by this Court to receive such deposit, in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the minor, Jacob Lawson, and to be withdrawn only by the express order of this Court.

6. The monies hereby ordered deposited shall remain in the trust account until the minor child, Jacob Lawson, reaches the age of 18 years, unless an order allowing withdrawal of an amount is entered by a judge of this Court.

7. Such withdrawal will be authorized by the presentation of a certified copy of such order which expressly directs the appropriate disposition of the funds, including the amount to be withdrawn and to whom it shall be paid. Such account shall be styled and administered in accordance with the rules of the depository bank or savings and loan institution.

8. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs Jeff Lawson and Christie Lawson should be and are hereby appointed as the guardians and trustees of the account to be established on behalf of the minor child, Jacob Lawson.

9. This settlement is not to be construed as an admission of liability on behalf of Defendants. It is made for the purpose of compromising a disputed claim.

10. The Plaintiffs, Jeff Lawson and Christie Lawson, as parents of Jacob Lawson, a minor, are hereby directed, upon performance by Defendants of the terms of the compromise settlement, to execute all documents necessary to fully and fmally dispose of any claims including, but not limited to, the filing of a dismissal with prejudice of this action and exeàuting a release.

Outcome: Settle and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts: Thomas F. Egan, Pharm.D.

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Comment: It has been estimated that one our of every 500 prescriptions filed in the United States are wrong. Few of the errors cause actual harm but a certain number of them cause minor or catastrophic harm to the person who take the erroneously dispensed medication.