Date: 05-04-2012

Case Style: Jessie Joe Manahl v. Integris Baptist Medical Center, Inc., et al.

Case Number: CJ-2012-2580

Judge: Patricia G. Parris

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: L. Justin Lowe

Defendant's Attorney: Glen Huff, Susan Ann Short and Greg Lytle

Description: Jussie Joe Manahl sued Integris Baptist Medical Center, Inc. and Brent C. Wilson, M.D. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories. The claims made are not available.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BRENT C. WILSON, M.D. The Defendant, Brent C. Wilson, M.D. answers Plaintiffs Petition as follows:

This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation I of the Amended Petition. This Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 ofthe Amended Petition. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation 4 of the Amended Petition.

This Defendant admits that jurisdiction and venue are proper in Oklahoma County. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 regarding medical care.

This Defendant denies the allegation that the ER report noted “blood in his mouth” in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition. The remaining factual allegations are this answer.

8. This Defendant admits that plaintiff was discharged at 6:59 a.m. on May 31, 2009.

9. This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

10. This Defendant does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 14 through 19 and therefore denies the same.

11. This Defendant admits that he has a duty to provide care within the applicable standard of care.

12. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

13. This Defendant admits he must follow the applicable standard of care as alleged in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Petition. This Defendant specifically states that all care was performed in accordance with the applicable standard of care.

14. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

15. This Defendant admits he must follow the applicable standard of care as alleged in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition. This Defendant specifically states that all care was performed in accordance with the applicable standard of care.

16. The allegations in paragraphs 25 through 27 of the Amended Petition, together with the prayer for relief which follows are specifically denied. Rather, this Defendant states that all care rendered to the Plaintiff met applicable standards for such care.

17. This Defendant specifically denies that any act or omission on its part was the proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiff.

18. This Defendant specifically denies that the Plaintiff sustained any injury or suffered any damage by reason of any alleged act or omission on the part of this Defendant.

19. Since discovery has not begun, this Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer in any particular.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Petition fails to state a claim against this Defendant upon which relief can be granted, either in whole or in part. This defense includes, but is not limited to, Plaintiffs claim of punitive damages, which fails to state a claim for relief against this Defendant.

2. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the Plaintiff. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant exercised no control.

3. The Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were caused by other, unrelated physical or mental or personal conditions of the Plaintiff, for which this Defendant is not responsible.

4. The Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were caused by a pre-existing or post-developing unrelated medical condition, disease, illness or infection for which this Defendant is not responsible.

5. The imposition of punitive damages in this case would violate this Defendant’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its right to freedom from excessive fines under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Having answered, defendant Brent C. Wilson, M.D., prays plaintiffs take nothing.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT BRENT C. WILSON. M.D.

Defendant Brent C. Wilson, M.D., pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 2056, moves this Court to grant summary judgment in his favor. Dr. Wilson is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to bring suit against Dr. Wilson within the 2 year statute of limitations. In support of this motion, Dr. Wilson shows the Court as follows: Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

I. Plaintiff Jessie Manahl was treated at Integris Baptist Medical Center by Dr. Wilson on May 3 1, 2009. (See Amended Petition, Attached as Exhibit A).

2. Plaintiff tiled his claim against Dr. Wilson on November 23, 2011. (See Exhibit A).

3. In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff must file suit within two (2) years of his injury. 76 O.S. § 18.

Arguments and Authority

PROPOSITION

Plaintiffs Claims Are Barred

By the Controlling Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff claims Dr. Wilson provided him with substandard medical care. See gen Exhibit A. Plaintiffs claims of medical negligence are controlled by a two-year statute of limitations. 76 O.S. § 18 provides: Section 18 Limitation of action:

An action for damages for injury or death against any physician, health care provider, or hospital licensed under the laws of this state, whether based in tort, breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care, shall be brought within two (2) years of the date the plaintiff knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, or the existence of a death, injury or condition complained of; provided, however, the minority or incompetency when the cause of action arises will extend said period of limitation. (Emphasis supplied).

Plaintiff asserts Dr. Wilson failed to diagnose ajaw fracture during his ER visit on May 31, 2009. However, Plaintiff waited more than two years from the date of his examination to file suit. Plaintiff first named Dr. Wilson in his Amended Petition, filed on November 23,2011. This is more than five months past the two-year cut-off. Therefore, plaintiffs claim against Dr. Wilson is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Conclusion

The applicable two-year statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs recovery for damages incurred more than two years prior to the date of filing. On that basis, Dr. Wilson is entitled to summary judgment.

Outcome: BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Brent C. Wilson, M.D., Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition and Defendant’s Reply. The Court, having read the parties’ briefs and heard the argument of Counsel, finds Defendant’s Motion should be granted. Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Brent C. Wilson, M.D. and against Plaintiff Jessie Joe Manahl is hereby entered.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: