Date: 07-26-2013

Case Style: Melinda Carlson v. Capital Assets, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2012-4890

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Oleg Roytman and Donald Smolen, II

Defendant's Attorney: Christopher S. Thrutchley

Description: Melinda Carlson sued Capital Assets, Inc. on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2. The Defendant is an Oklahoma corporation having substantial ties to Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

3. The accident and injury that gives rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

4. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated herein by reference

6 Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on or about October 2, 2010, while working for and employed by Defendant.

7. Plaintiff notified her supervisor of this injury and was provided medical treatment.

8. Plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim on October 4, 2010.

9. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated from her employment with Defendant while receiving medical treatment as a result of her work related injury.

CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

WRONGFUL TERMINATION

10. Paragraphs 1-9 are incorporated herein by reference.

11. On or about October 2, 2010, Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment while working for Defendant.

12. Defendant subsequently terminated plaintiff for exercising the rights afforded to her under the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, OKLA. STAT. Tit. 85, § 301 et seq.

13. The termination of Plaintiff was in direct violation of Oklahoma law. More specifically, said policy and act of termination violates the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, OKLA. STAT. Tit. 85, § 341.

14. As a result of this wrongful termination, Plaintiff has suffered considerable damages including, but not limited to loss wages and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.

COUNT II

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

15. Paragraphs 1-14 are incorporated herein by reference.

16. Defendant acted in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and all employees of the company. Furthermore, by enacting and implementing an employment policy in such violation of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, Defendant acted intentionally and with malice towards others.

17. This conduct was conducted with full knowledge where the Defendant knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of their actions upon Plaintiff and all other employees of Defendant.

18. Such a policy was not only detrimental to Plaintiff, but also detrimental to the public in general, and punitive damages are appropriate under OKLA. STAT. Tit. 85, § 6.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, reasonable attorneys fees, and all other relief which is deemed appropriate by this Court.

Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff herein, and hereby dismisses this action against the Defendant with prejudice to refihing.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: