Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-09-2013

Case Style: Teresa Monaghan v. Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2012-5650

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: James L. Mitchell and Geremy Roland

Defendant's Attorney: Charles Michael Barkley, Thomas Haskins Hull, Jr., Fred Will DeMier, Cassie Mock

Description: Teresa Monaghan and the Estate of Pamela Taylor, Deceased, sued Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc. on medical negligence theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff’ eresa Monaghan is the natural born surviving daughter of Pamela Taylor and resides in Grpevine, Tarrant County, Texas.

2. Defendan Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc. is an Oklahoma not for profit corporation with its principal office located at 6655 South Yale, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133. Defendant Laureate Psydliiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc. may be served by serving its registered agent, Jeffrey C. Sacra at6l6l South Yale, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over the parties to this action since the matter in controversy exceds the sum or value of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court, exclusive of costs and irterest. Further, the Court has jurisdiction and venue over the parties since all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the asserted claims occurred in Tulsa Count3, Oklahoma. The facts that give rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

Qualified Expert

4. Undersignd counsel has conferred with an obtained a written report from a qualified expert prior to filing suit. An Affidavit pursuant to 12 O.S. § 19(A)(I) is attached hereto.

Facts

5. Pamela Tylor was an inpatient at Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc., located at 6655 South Yale Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136, from March 29, 2011 until April 4, 2011. On March 29, 201 1, Ms. Taylor was discharged from St. Francis 1-Jospital, after suffering a fall at home, and transf1rred to Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc. for inpatient care due to her inability to take care of herself and behavioral abnormalities. Ms. Taylor was noted to be a high fall risk Ofl ciseharge from St. Francis Hospital and upon admission at Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hopita1, Inc. Physician Order’s and care plans stated that Ms. Taylor was to have a bed alarm so th staff would be notified if she tried to get out of bed without assistance. On March 30, 2011, Ms. Taylor fell out of bed. On April 4, 2011, Ms. Taylor again fell out of bed and suffered severe bad injuries. Decedent Pamela Taylor died of her head injuries on May 4, 2011.

6. Plaintiff ‘ould show that all of the acts alleged herein were undertaken by the Defendant, acting either individually or by and through its agents, employees, representatives and staff physicians, in tie course and scope of its representative capacity. Defendant is liable for the misdeeds of its ersonnel under the doctrines of agency and/or respondeat superior. Plaintiff wouki further shw that all of Pamela Taylor’s damages alleged herein were directly and proximately caused by the acts and omissions of the Defendant described herein.

Negligence of Defendant

7. Defendant1 committed acts anti/or omissions in its care of Pamela Taylor, which constituted negligence uider terms defined by law. These negligent acts and/or omissions include the following:

(a) faied to provide Ms. Taylor with appropriate fall precautions, adequate suervision, and assistive devices to prevent falls and injury;

(b) faied to provide Ms. Taylor with quality care, i.e., the necessary care and señ’ices to attain, or maintain, the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the assessment and care plai;

(c) faied to report and document Ms. Taylor’s condition and treatment, in acordance with accepted nursing standards and practices, that are coiapletcly and accurately documented;

(d) faied to provide Ms. Taylor with adequate proficient staff to meet her neods; and

(e) failed to comply with Licensing Standards for Health Facilities Licensure an4 Compliance Division Requirements, Conditions of Participation for Hopitals, Requirements of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of iiedthcare Organizations; Oklahoma Nursing Practice Act Standards of Nursing Practice, Unprofessional Conduct, Nursing; Scope & Standards of Prctice; Scope & Standards of Gerontological Nursing Practice; and other unliversally accepted standards of nursing practice.

8. Each of thse such acts and omissions, singularly or in combination with others, was/were a proximate cuse of the death of Pamela Taylor and the injuries and damages of Plaintiff.

Damages

9. This actioi is maintained by Plaintiff to recover all damages to which she may be justly entitled to receive because of the matters made the basis of this suit, including, but not limited to grief and sorrov, loss of companionship, society and enjoyment of the life of Pamela Taylor, past medical exlenses, past physical pain and mental anguish of Pamela Taylor, and suffering and other wrongs which occurred to the mind and body of Pamela Taylor. Plaintiff seeks all damages for los of consortium and mental anguish, as well as pain and mental anguish suffered by Pamela ‘1’ayhr before her death. Plaintiff further prays for prejudgment and post- judgment interest in the maximum amount allowed by law. Prayer

WHEREFORE, IREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that she have judgment against such Defendant a follows:

a. That Plainiff recovers from Defendant for her damages described above, in a sum substantially in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court in excess of 75,000 dollars;

b. That Plainiff recovers pre-judgment interest on the amount accrued at the highest legal rate ,llowed by law beginning from the date of incident to the date of judgment ii this cause;

e. Alternativ1y, that Plaintiff recovers pre-judgment interest on the amount accrued, as describd above, at the highest legal rate allowed by law;

d, That Plainiff recovers post-judgment interest on the total due amounts at the highest legal rate from the date of judgment until paid; and e. That Plaintiff recovers all costs of court, and such other and further relief, both general an1 special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.


Plaintiff filed the following affidavit:

I.

I am counsel for Ms Teresa Monaghan, Individually and on Behalf of the estate of Pamela Taylor, deceased, in the above-styled cause. Consequently, 1 am providing thisiflidavit on her behalf in compliance with 12 O.S. § 19(A)(l).

II.

On Ms. Monaghan’s behalf, I have consulted and reviewed the facts of her claim with a qualified expert. Furthermore, I have obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies Decedent Pamela Taylor and includes the expert’s determination that, based upon a review of the available medical records, facts or other relevant material, a reasonable interpretation of same supports a finding that the acts or omissions of the health care providers against whom Ms. Monaghan is bringing her action constituted professional negligence.

III.

On the basis of the qualified expert’s review and consultation, and on behalf of Ms. Monaghan, I have concluded that her claim is meritorious and based on good cause.

Effective December 9, 2013, Title 12 O.S. Section 19 will provide the following:

A. 1. In any civil action for professional negligence, except as provided in subsection B of this section, the plaintiff shall attach to the petition an affidavit attesting that:

a. the plaintiff has consulted and reviewed the facts of the claim with a qualified expert,

b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including, but not limited to, applicable medical records, facts or other relevant material, a reasonable interpretation of the facts supports a finding that the acts or omissions of the defendant against whom the action is brought constituted professional negligence, and

c. on the basis of the review and consultation of the qualified expert, the plaintiff has concluded that the claim is meritorious and based on good cause.

2. If the civil action for professional negligence is filed:

a. without an affidavit being attached to the petition, as required in paragraph 1 of this subsection, and

b. no extension of time is subsequently granted by the court, pursuant to subsection B of this section,

the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling.

3. The written opinion from the qualified expert shall state the acts or omissions of the defendant or defendants that the expert then believes constituted professional negligence and shall include reasons explaining why the acts or omissions constituted professional negligence. The written opinion from the qualified expert shall not be admissible at trial for any purpose nor shall any inquiry be permitted with regard to the written opinion for any purpose either in discovery or at trial.

B. 1. The court may, upon application of the plaintiff for good cause shown, grant the plaintiff an extension of time, not exceeding ninety (90) days after the date the petition is filed, except for good cause shown, to file in the action an affidavit attesting that the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert as described in paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section.

2. If on the expiration of an extension period described in paragraph 1 of this subsection, the plaintiff has failed to file in the action an affidavit as described above, the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, unless good cause is shown for such failure, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling. If good cause is shown, the resulting extension shall in no event exceed sixty (60) days.

C. 1. Upon written request of any defendant in a civil action for professional negligence, the plaintiff shall, within ten (10) business days after receipt of such request, provide the defendant with:

a. a copy of the written opinion of a qualified expert mentioned in an affidavit filed pursuant to subsection A or B of this section, and

b. an authorization from the plaintiff in a form that complies with applicable state and federal laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, for the release of any and all medical records related to the plaintiff for a period commencing five (5) years prior to the incident that is at issue in the civil action for professional negligence.

2. If the plaintiff fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this subsection, the court shall, upon motion of the defendant, unless good cause is shown for such failure, dismiss the action without prejudice to its refiling.

D. A plaintiff in a civil action for professional negligence may claim an exemption to the provisions of this section based on indigency pursuant to the qualification rules established as set forth in Section 4 of this act.

Laureate Psychiatric Clinic and Hospital, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant Laureate is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 Plaintiffs Petition and therefore, denies the same.

2. Defendant Laureate admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendant Laureate admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition that an Affidavit is attached to Plaintiffs Petition, but Defendant Laureate is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 Plaintiffs Petition and therefore, denies the same.

4. Defendant Laureate admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff) Petition that the Decedent was transferred from Saint Francis Hospital on 3-29-il and admitted

to Laureate on the same date and she was discharged on 4-4-11. Defendant Laureate denies the remaining allegations contained in the same Paragraph. The medical records of the Decedent will speak for themselves as to the allegations of the same Paragraph.

5. Defendant Laureate denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 8, 9 and the entire Prayer Paragraph including Paragraphs A, B, C, D and E of Plaintiff’s Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendant Laureate denies that any of its agents, servants or employees were negligent in any way concerning the care and treatment of Pamela Taylor, deceased.

2. Defendant Laureate denies that it was negligent in the care and treatment of Pamela Taylor, deceased, and further states that the manner in which Defendant Laureate’s agents, servants, or employees treated and cared for Pamela Taylor, deceased, at all times met or exceeded the appropriate standard of care.

3. Plaintiff is precluded from recovering medical bills that have been paid for by a third party and for which the third party does not possess, claim, demand or assert a right of subrogation or recovery. In this regard, Defendant Laureate reserves the right under 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1D to strike any and all evidence of payment of any medical bills for which there is no claim, demand, or right of subrogation or recovery.

4. Plaintiff’s damages were caused by the acts of third parties who were not the agents or employees of the Defendant Laureate.

5. Lack of causation.

6. Any damages allegedly suffered by Pamela Taylor, deceased, were caused by a pre-existing or post-developing unrelated medical condition, disease, illness, infection or injury for which Defendant Laureate is not responsible.

7. Decedent’s injuries are a known complication of prior medical treatment received from healthcare providers and healthcare facilities for which Defendant Laureate has no control.

8. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1054, the only proper party to assert this action is the duly appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Pamela Taylor. The caption does not indicate Teresa Monaghan is asserting this action in her capacity as Personal Representative of said Estate.

9. Defendant Laureate specifically reserves the right to amend or modify its Answer upon completion of discovery.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: