Date: 06-09-2016

Case Style: Rex Hefley v. OU Physicians, et al.

Case Number: CJ-2013-1025

Judge: Patricia G. Parrish

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Rick Moore

Defendant's Attorney: Robert Mitchell and Jasper Abbott for David R. Huard, M.D., Roxie Albrecht, M.D., and Jeffrey S. Bender, M.D.

David Alan Russell for HCA Health Services Of Oklahoma Inc

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Rex Hefley sued David R. Huard, M.D., Roxie Albrecht, M.D., and Jeffrey S. Bender, M.D. and HCA Health Services Of Oklahoma, Inc. on medical negligence theories claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a direct result of having been provided substandard care by the Defendants after being injured in a car wreck on March 16, 2009 for treatment of traumatic brain injuries, zygomatic fracture of the right side, multiple fractures of his spine, ribs, and left wrist and hand and internal injuries.

The Petition filed by the Plaintiff provided, in part, as follows:

1. That Plaintiff was involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident in the evening of 1he 16th day of March, 2009.
2. That Plaintiff was on that day admitted, through the emergency room, to the University of Oklahoma Health Science Center.
3. That Plaintiff was at that time intermittently unconscious and had suffered a number of injuries, including traumatic brain injury, zygomatic fracture on the right side, multiple fractures of his spine, ribs, and left wrist and hand, and internal injuries.

I

4. That at the time of his accident, and at all relevant times before and after such, Plaintiff was prescribed benzodiazepine (Valium) for treatment of anxiety, which he takes in accordance with said prescription.
5. That Plaintiff was treated at the Intensive Care Unit of the OU Health Science Center from 16 March 2009, through 10 April 2009, for his injuries resulting from the Motor Vehicle Accident.
6. That during his treatment at OU Health Science Center, the Plaintiff wa nnt given appropriate medication, i.e., benzodiazepine, and as result of such suffered from life­ threatening withdrawal symptoms, or in the alternative suffered from "!Cl Psychosis" or "delirium tremens."
7. That prior to the accident, Plaintiff suffered no known illhealth, aside from arthritis and humerus surgery on his right arm.
8. That the Plaintiff was diagnosed with ICU psychosis, or that as result of hi , withdrawals from anxiety medication, the Plaintiff suffered severe anxiety, delusions, and was also diagnosed with "delirium tremens"(alcohol withdrawal) seizures.
9. That on or around 3 April 2009, and while in a diagnosed state of "psycho:,is," for whatever reason, the Plaintiff was allowed to access a pair of scissors and cut his Foley's catheter, resulting in retraction of the catheter and an inability to urinate for four days.
10. That thereafter, the Plaintiff required a cystoscopy to retrieve the catheter from inside his urethra.
11. That prior to the accident and his subsequent treatment at OU Health Scier,ce Center, Plaintiff was a practicing chiropractor for 31 years in Anadarko, Oklahoma.

12. That Plaintiff still suffers illeffects from the accident and from his treatme.1t thereafter, including increased anxiety, decreased mental function, and other long-ten n disabilities, particularly those involving his left hand and back, which have negatively , mpacted his
ability to perform his work as a chiropractor.

13. That following his care in the OU Health Sciences Center, the Plaintiff has required numerous surgeries to repair injuries sustained during his treatment, includ ing a compression fracture to his T7 vertebra, and danmge and loss of use of his left hand and wrist.
14. That as result of his injuries and continuing surgical treatment, the Plaintiff has been rendered permanently disabled, and unable to work in his career as a Chiropractor.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Comes now the Plaintiff, and for this his First Cause of Action, readopts, r,:alleges, and restates all facts common to all causes of actions, and states further:

I.


The Plaintiff alleges that during his care and surgeries at OU Health Sciences center, the care he received was insufficient and inappropriate, and that staff failed to adequatdy treat the Plaintiff with regards to common standards of care for medical professionals, 10 wit:

1. That Plaintiff was diagnosed with a form of psychosis and he was bein g denied appropriate medication for his anxiety and was not properly restrained or transported, or his injuries properly immobilized.

Defendants Bender, Albrecht and Huard moved for summary judgment.

2. That Plaintiff's wife and other members of his family had informed the medical staff at the Emergency Room and the Intensive Care Unit of his prescriptio1 for Valium, but that the staff persisted in failing to administer that medication, wh1 ch could be a contributing cause to the Defendant's diagnosis of psychosis.
3. That the staff at the emergency room and ICU either caused, or in any event, failed to properly assess the compression fractures to Plaintiff's spine, requiring Plaintiff to undergo further surgeries after his bones had already re-set improperly.
4. That surgery was successfully performed to correct the injuries to the Plaintiff's left wrist within the first two or three days of his hospital stay, and that as of April l'1
2012, x-rays showed his wrist healing properly.


5. That by the 10th of April, 2012, the Plaintiff's wrist had become crook ed and had been re-injured. This re-injury caused the Plaintiff's wrist to heal improperly and required the Plaintiff to undergo further corrective surgery on his left wrist after his release from the hospital. That the Defendant and its agents failed to immobilize internally and externally the Plaintiff's injured left hand, which resulted in the re­ injury and worsened condition of that hand.
6. That Plaintiff has suffered a number of injuries, some self-inflicted, resulting from his stay at the ICU and has required further treatment subsequently. Such injuries include, but are not limited to:
a. A compression fracture of his T-7 vertebra, which was never mentioned to the Plaintiff or his wife, and was untreated at OU HSC.
b. The long-term disability in his left hand, caused by the failure of the staff at OU HSC to properly immobilize the hand, which allowed it to be re-injured and to heal incorrectly.
c. The retraction of his Foley's catheter into his urethra following Plaintiff's cutting of said catheter while in the ICU after having been diagnosed with a form of psychosis, he was given access to scissors.
7. That Defendant owed to the Plaintiff a duty to provide quality medica , care to the Plaintiff during his treatment and that such duty was breached by the above actions of physicians and employees of the Defendant.
8. That Defendant, under the theory of respondeat superior, is responsible and liable for the actions of its employees.
9. That as a direct cause of the breach of Defendant's duty of care owed to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff was injured and has suffered certain temporary and permanent personal injuries and those incurred mental and physical pain and suffering, bo th past, present, and future. Plaintiff has incurred medical bills, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent impairment to his whole bod y, all caused by the negligent actions of this Defendant and to the detriment of the Pia. ntiff.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment agaimt the Defendant, for actual damages in a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) together with interest thereon, the costs of this action, a reasonable attorney fee, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION-BREACH OF CONTRACT.


COMES NOW the Plaintiff and realleges and readopts each allegation slated above as if specifically pied herein below.

1. That a contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant w1ereby the Defendant had a contractual obligation to provide quality medical care to the national standard level of care.
2. That the Defendant breached the aforementioned contract !Jy failing to provide quality medical care to the national standard of m"dical care.
3. That as a result of the breach of the contract the Plaintiff has suffered damages and continues to suffer damages.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment again ,t the Defendant, for actual damages in a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10.000.00) together with interest thereon, the costs of the action, a reasonable attorney fee, and such ,ither relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION-GROSS NEGLIGENCE

COMES NOW the Plaintiff realleges and readopts each and every allega tion set herein below as it were specifically pied herein below.

1. That on or about the 16th through the 21st of March, 2009 the Defendant's employees failed to diagnose a compression fracture of the Plaintiff s spine, administer the proper medication to Plaintiff, and failed to immobilize the Plaintiff s hand and allowed him to gain access to scissors whil e ina diagnosed state of "psychosis".
2. This failure to provide the correct diagnosis of his compressed vertebrae and failure to provide proper medication or immobilization constitutes gross negligence on the part of the Defendant.
3. This failure to provide the foregoing is a wanton disregard for t he safety of the patient.
4. That the Defendant should be punished for said lack of proper care in order to deter others from such gross negligence.


EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVIT

Expert Opinion Affidavit As required by Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §19, Plaimiff Rex Hefley, by and through her attorney of record, attaches the Affidavit of Rick D. Moore es1ablishing that the plaintiff, by and through his attorney, has consulted and reviewed the facts of olaintiff s claim with a qualified expert who identifies the plaintiff, Rex Hefley, and include , the determination that the acts or omissions of the defendants constitute professional 11egligence.

Outcome: JUDGE PARRISH: DEFENDANT'S BENDER ET AL, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - GRANTED, PLTF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS BENDER, ET AL, -- MOOT, PLTF MOTION TO COMPEL DFT HCA, AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY CONFERENCE - STRN TO BE RESET

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: