Date: 12-21-2015

Case Style: Debra Lynn Summers v. Satheesh Shetty, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2011-8664

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dan Shadid and Mike Mosca

Defendant's Attorney: Randall Sewell and Tony Childers

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Debra Lynn Summers sued Satheesh Shetty, M.D. on a medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory
claiming: I . The plaintiff, Debra Lynn Summers is a resident of Elmore City, Garvin County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Satheesh Shetty, M.D., is a duly licensed medical doctor who practices medicine in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and may be served by Summons in Oklahoma County.
3. All transactions which give rise to the plaintiff's causes of action occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4. The plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph Nos. 1-3, above.
5. On or about March 25, 2011, the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure referred to as an Ulnar-Shortening Osteotomy at the Oklahoma Center for Orthopedic and Multi-Specialty Surgery Center located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
6. The defendant was the attending anesthesiologist pertaining to the aforesaid surgery.

7. Approximately one (1) year prior to the aforesaid surgical procedure, the plaintiff underwent a lumpectomy of the right breast, combined with excision and removal of various lymph nodes of the right axillary region of her body.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her left arm in an on-the-job accident. Those injuries necessitated surgical repair of the plaintiff's left arm and left wrist, including the aforementioned Ulnar-Shortening Osteotomy of the left wrist which is the subject of this action.
9. Prior to the surgical procedure of March 25, 2011, nursing personnel and/or technicians of Oklahoma Center for Orthopedic and Multi-Specialty Surgery, LLC, made multiple attempts to insert an IV needle into the plaintiff s feet and/or calf areas for purposes of administration ofintravenous fluids and general anesthesia. The aforesaid nurses and/or technicians attempted placement of the IV needle in the plaintiff s lower extremities due to the fact that the plaintiff had undergone the aforementioned lumpectomy and excision oflymph nodes on the right side.
10. It was well-known to the aforesaid nurses/technicians and the defendant that placement of an IV needle, blood pressure cuff, or other traumas to a patient's arm on the side of a previous lumpectomy with excised lymph nodes must be avoided so as to avoid and prevent a resulting lymphedema to that arm.
11. In the present case, prior to the subject surgical procedure, and prior to placement of any IV line, the nurses/technicians of Oklahoma Center for Orthopedic and Multi-Specialty Surgery, LLC, placed awarning band onthe plaintiff sright arm, warning all healthcare providers to not place any IV, administer any shots or place a blood pressure cuff on the plaintiff s right arm.

..





12. The aforementioned attempts by nurses and/or technicians to insert an IV line into the plaintiff slower extremities failed. As a result, the nurses/technicians called upon the defendant, as the anesthesiologist, to aid in the insertion of the IV needle into the plaintiff s lower extremities.
13. The defendant, knowing of the plaintiff s pre-existing surgical history and knowing that the warning band was on the plaintiff s right arm, proceeded to insert an IV needle into the plaintiff s right arm contrary to well-known medical knowledge that insertion of an IV into the plaintiff s right arm could very well result in the plai ntiff suffering life-long lymphedema.
14. The defendant did place the IV in the plaintiff s right arm.

15. The placement of the IV in the plaintiff s right arm by the defendant was negligent and below the accepted standard of medical care.
16. At all times, the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty to render medical care and treatment within the standard of accepted medical care. The defendant breached this duty to the plaintiff.
17. As a direct result of the defendant placing the IV in the plaintiff s right arm, the plaintiff within avery short time following the surgical procedure developed lymphedema which has rendered the plaintiff s arm effectively useless.
18. As a result of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff has suffered extreme damages, including constant pain and suffering to the plaintiff s right arm, loss of use of the plaintiff s right hand and arm, medical bills, future pain and suffering, permanent damage to the plaintiff s right arm and right hand, emotional distress, and loss of earning capacity.

19. The defendant's conduct constituted gross negligence and conduct in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant should be made to suffer punitive damages so as to set an example for others and to deter such conduct.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays the Conrt enter Judgment on the plaintiff s First Cause of Action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for actual damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and for punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). The plaintiff further prays that she be awarded statutory interest and costs. The plaintiff does seek damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount for federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20. The plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph Nos. 1-19, above.
21. The insertion of the IV by the defendant in the plaintiff s right arm constituted a

battery.

22. The plaintiff openly objected to the defendant inserting the IV needle into the plaintiff s right arm. However, the defendant proceeded to do so without the plaintiff s consent.
23. As a result of the battery perpetrated by the defendant upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffered actual damages as set forth above.
24. The battery perpetrated upon the plaintiff by the defendant was willful. As such, the defendant should be made to suffer punitive damages so as to punish the defendant and to set an example for others.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts: Dr. Stanley Rockson

Defendant's Experts: Dr. Mehdi Adham

Comments: