Date: 10-31-2013

Case Style: Jennifer M. Clay v. Dean R. Carpenter, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2011-8874

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Maurice G. Woods, II

Defendant's Attorney: L. Earl Ogletree, Emily N. Kitch and Erin A. Renegar

Description: Jennifer M. Clay sued Dean R. Carpenter, M.D. on a medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory claiming:

1. The acts and omissions of the Defendant at all times referenced herein occurred in Oklahoma County. Therefore, jurisdiction and venue are proper.

2. At all times referenced below the Defendant, Dean Carpenter, M.D., was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma.

3. Plaintiff has a history of painful ovarian cysts for which was taking narcotic pain relievers and as a result she sought treatment and consultation with the Defendant.

4. On February 23, 2010, Defendant scheduled and performed an operation known as a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to remove Plaintiffs tubes and ovaries in an effort to relieve the pain from the cysts.

5. Defendant purported to remove Plaintiffs tubes and ovaries during the surgcry on February 23, 2010.

6. On Februry 25, 2010 the pathology report was submitted showing that Plaintiffs tubes and ovaries were not grossly identified. Defendant reviewed the pathology report March 12, 2010.

7. Plaintiff had two (2) follow-up post operative appointments with the Defendant wherein the Defendant failed to disclose his failure to remove Plaintiff’s tubes and ovaries. Instead, Defendant placed the Plaintiff on estrogen hormone replacement therapy.

8. On April 17,2011, Plaintiff presented to OU Edmond Regional Medical Center with lower abdominal pain consistent with the pain she had prior to Defendant performing surgery upon her. Based upon diagnostic testing, it was determined Plaintiff still had her ovaries and was again suffering from ovarian cysts.

9. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant constitutes professional negligence. Plaintiffs treatment by the Defendant fell below the standard of care in the medical community. Defendant’s conduct by failing to advise Plaintiff as to his error constitutes either gross and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs rights or intentional concealment.

10. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute fraud. Defendant was paid to perfonn services he did not perform. Defendant should disgorge his ill-gotten gains.

11. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant are extreme and outrageous and constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

10. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has incurred personal injuries and sustained economic damages for the expenses incurred in the surgery, pain in suffering needlessly incurred with subsequent ovarian cysts, will endure pain and suffering associated with a second (2j surgery in the future together with the costs thereof, and has taken estrogen hormone replacement therapy for a period in excess of one (1) year while still maintaining her ovaries which is clearly contraindicated and increases her risk for certain cancers.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in against Defendant for damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), punitive damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), attorney fees, costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.


Defendant Dean R. Carpenter, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. With respect to paragraphs 1 and 2 of plaintiff’s Petition, defendant admits that he is licensed to practice medicine in the state of Oklahoma and that his care and treatment of plaintiff, Jennifer Clay, occurred in Oklahoma County; however, this defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation regarding any “acts and omissions” with regard to plaintiff’s care and treatment rise to the level of negligence.

2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of plaintiff’s Petition are admitted.

3. Paragraph 5 of plaintiff’s Petition is denied as stated.

4. Paragraph 6, sentence one, of plaintiff’s Petition, is denied as stated. With respect to paragraph 6 sentence two of plaintiff’s Petition, this defendant is presently without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation and therefore, must deny the same.

5. With respects to paragraphs 7 and B of plaintiff’s Petition, defendant is presently without sufficient information to admit or deny all claims contained in those paragraphs and; therefore, must deny the same. Specifically, all allegations of negligence are herein denied.

6. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 10 (sic) are specifically denied by this defendant.

Affirmative Defenses

First Defense

At all relevant times, this defendant was providing appropriate, reasonable care to plaintiff, and her injuries were not the result of medical negligence.

Second Defense

Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Third Defense

All caps applicable to damages alleged shall be applied to this action.

Fourth Defense

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is not only unfounded but is apprised under Oklahoma law as violative of this defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant contends 23 O.S. § 9.1 is unconstitutional, overly vague, and violative of the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fifth Deferse

Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer including affirmative defenses as investigation and discovery continue.

WHEREFORE, defendant Dean R. Carpenter, M.D., having fully answered, prays that plaintiff take nothing by virtue of her Petition; judgment be entered in defendant’s favor, and that defendant be awarded costs and such other just and equitable relief as the Court shall deem just.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

Defendant filled a motion for summary judgment asserting that the following facts were not in dispute:

1. Plaintiff filed her Petition on October 31, 2011, stating that “plaintiff’s treatment by the defendant fell below the standard of care in the medical community.” (See Exhibit A, ¶ 9).

2. On March 1, 2013, this Court entered a Scheduling Order requiring all parties to exchange a Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List 60 days before Pretrial Conference and exchange a Final Witness and Exhibit List 30 days befare Pretrial Conference which was scheduled to occur on August 21, 2013. (See Exhibit B, Scheduling Order.)

3. On June 24, 2013, defendant exchanged his Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order. (See Exhibit C, Defendant’s Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List).

4. On July 21, 2013, defense counsel issued correspondence to plaintiff’s counsel indicating they did not receive a copy of plaintiff’s Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List. (See Exhibit D, correspondence of July 21, 2013.)

5. Defense counsel filed their Final Witness and Exhibit List July 22, 2013, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order. (See Exhibit E, Defendant’s Final Witness and Exhibit List.)

6. To date, plaintiff has failed to exchange her Preliminary Witness and Exhibit List or her Final Witness and Exhibit List and has not identified an expert witness to support her medical negligence claim against Dr. Carpenter.

7. In addition to not exchanging a witness list, defense counsel has issued multiple correspondence to plaintiff’s counsel requesting the identity of plaintiff’s experts and dates to depose said experts (See Exhibit
2013; Exhibit G correspondence of June 26, 2013.; June 11, 2013; Exhibit I, correspondence of May 24, failed to respond to any of these informal requests to
F, correspondence of July 16, Exhibit H, correspondence of 201 3.) To date, plaintiff has identify an expert witness.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: