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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-18-2013

Case Style: Cassandra Jane Millspauch v. Hillcrest Medical Center

Case Number: CJ-2013-2424

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Gregory J. Denney

Defendant's Attorney: Grant A. Fitz and Jason Christopher Rush for Hillcrest Medical Center

W. Joseph Pickard for J. Clark Bundren, M.D., Soorena Fatehchehr, M.D., and Mahate Parker, M.D.

Description: Cassandra Jame Millspaugh and Roger Millspaugh sued Hillcrest Medical Center, OU Physicians Tulsa/OU Phycicians Women's Healthcare Specialists, J. Clark Bundren, M.D., Doorena Fatehchehr, M.D., and Mahate Parker, M.D. on negligence theories claiming:

1. That Cassandra Smith, a/k/a Cassandra Millspaugh, Cassandra Jane Milispaugh, Cassie Milispaugh, Cassandra Jane Smith and Cassie Smith (hereinafter “Cassandra Smith, a/ic/a Cassandra Milispaugh”) and her spouse, Roger Milispaugh, are residents of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and the wrongful acts complained of herein took place in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That Hillcrest Medical Center (‘HCA”) and The Peggy V. Helmerich Women’s Health Center at Hillcrest Medical Center are Oklahoma corporations doing business as hospitals, which provide, inter-alia, care to members of the public for a fee at its place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That Defendant OU Physicians TulsaIOU Physicians Women’s Health Care Specialists is an Oklahoma corporation doing business as a clinic, which provides care to members of the public for a fee at its place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,

4. That the named individual Defendants are health care providers licensed to perform their occupational skills in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. That the amount of damages in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of costs and interest.

6. That this Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this case and controversy pursuant to 12 0.5. § 2004(F).

7. That venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 134, 139, 143 & 154.

8. That proper Notice was given pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental Ton Claims Act by the Plaintiff herein and all claims were deemed denied.

9. That Defendant physicians are and were at all times material hereto residents of the State of Oklahoma.

II. FACTS

10. That the Plaintiff, Cassandra Smith, a/Ic/a Cassandra Millspaugh was admitted to the Women’s Center at Hillcrest Medical Center, located at 1120 South Utica, Tulsa on December 3rd, 2011 for labor and delivery of a term pregnancy.

11. That Mahate Parker, M.D., performed an episiotomy prior to delivery. After delivery it was determined that the Plaintiff suffered a “huge 4th degree laceration, repaired with 2-0 and 3-0 Vicryl and found to be hemostatic.”

12. That Mahate Parker, M.D., failed to describe the surgical method for closure. The applicable standard for medical care for the performance and repair of an episiotomy with 4th degree laceration or extension was not followed by Dr. Parker, which dictates that the obstetrician must fully understand the need to close all layers that are involved in the episiotomy and/or extension of the episiotomy from birth trauma.

13. That due to the failure of Dr. Parker to properly repair in layers the vaginal to rectal opening that occurred with the 4th degree and failure to appropriately evaluate the repair at the time of initial closure resulted in the formation of a rectovaginal fistula in the immediate postpartum period.

14. That due to the failure of Dr. J. Clark Bundren and Dr. Soorena Fatehchehr to assist and properly supervise in an anal sphincter repair, including all important rectal mucosal tissue layered closure and final digital rectal exam, Dr. Parker negligently and/or recklessly performed the complex repair resulting in the formation of a rectovaginal fistula in the immediate postpartum period.

15. That due to the failure of Defendant Hospital HMC and the Women’s Center to, among other things, perform ordered sitz baths while plaintiff was inpatient at Hillcrest Medical Center and subsequent failure to provide instruction with the take-home sitz bath to the Plaintiff, healing of the fourth degree laceration was not promoted and Plaintiff suffered increased perineal pain.

16. That the Plaintiff experienced feces draining from her vagina, incontinence of stool, and discomfort during urination within only two days after discharge from hospital.

17. That the failure of the OU Physicians Tulsa/OU Physicians Women’s Health Care Specialists (hereinafter “OU Clinic”) to see the Plaintiff in a timely manner when she called about the aforementioned complications led to delayed diagnosis and repair of rectovaginal fistula.

18. That the OU Clinic failed to provide Plaintiff with an appointment after appointments were rescheduled by the OU Clinic. That the delay in assessing a complication from delivery and/or a delay in assessing for symptoms included in the discharge instructions is a direct result of socioeconomic discrimination as against the Plaintiff

19. That Plaintiff called OU Clinic and was advised that there were “no available appointments for two (2) weeks” despite repeated explanations of the aforementioned conditions and the obvious severity of the problems accompanied with pain from the same.

20. That on the day of the next appointment, Plaintiff received a phone call from the OU Clinic cancelling the appointment because “the physician had an emergency surgery so they would have to reschedule the appointment.” The appointment was rescheduled for one (1) month later. Further, Plaintiff was contacted by OU Clinic and was advised that she “would have to pay cash for her visit since her Sooner Care insurance expired”.

21. That soon thereafter, OU Clinic contacted Plaintiff and told her to come in. At the appointment, Plaintiff had to wait a considerable amount of time while the Administrator conferred with the Physician to get “special permission” to see her since Plaintiffs Sooner Care had expired. Plaintiff was finally examined and the rectovaginal fistula was found to be an issue and the physician told her that it was damaged to the point she would have to see another physician for corrective surgery. This visit occurred on January 17th, 2011, six weeks after delivery.

22. That the Plaintiff, Cassandra Smith, a/lc/a Cassandra Milispaugh, suffered emotionally and physically from the delay in examination for delivery complications by a physician due to lack of money for the office visit.

23. That on May 3, 2012, Plaintiff was seen by Spyros Marinis, M.D., at Women’s Pelvic Health Institute in which she was diagnosed with a 1.5 em x 1 cm fistula between rectum and vagina at 12 o’clock in relation to the rectum. This was 1 cm proximal to the hymenal ring.

24. That the Plaintiff has risk of persistent anal incontinence especially in liquid stool despite repair of defect, as well as a risk for painful defecation, dyspareunia and recurrence of the defect following surgical repair on June 11, 2012.

25. That the Plaintiff has continued complications from the rectovaginal fistula. She has incontinent stool about 1 to 2 times per month in the form of diarrhea. She requires daily use of incontinence pads for foul smelling drainage. Cassandra Smith, a/icia Cassandra Millspaugh, experiences pelvic floor skin irritation from the daily use of sanitary pads. Plaintiff has to dispose of approximately ten pairs of undergarments per month as a result of soilage from uncontrollable foul smelling drainage.

26. That the Plaintiff, Cassandra Smith, a/icia Cassandra Milispaugh, is humiliated because she has to wear adult diapers when out in public. She experiences social isolation from odor and uncontrollable flatulence as a result of the rectovaginal fistula. That the Plaintiff is unable to maintain or gain employment as a result of continuous foul body odor uncontrolled with three to four showers per day.

27. That the Plaintiff has experienced a great reduction in the amount of intimate contact with her spouse. The Plaintiff experiences pain during intercourse. She and her spouse are fearful of introducing infection to each other. She is very afraid that her husband will leave the marriage from not having his sexual desires met. She is unable to fully engage psychologically with her husband during intimate time due to the fear of incontinence, fear of infection and fear of rejection by her spouse due to fecal matter and odor.

28. That the Plaintiff’s husband is afraid of having sexual intercourse out of fear he will “mess something up” and due to hygienic issues with chance of urinary tract infection to himself. He is also suffering from his wife not feeling the same level of sexual desire as before the rectovaginal fistula complications had started.

29. That due to the failure of Dr. Parker and Dr. Bundren to correctly repair the 4th degree laceration resulting in rectovaginal fistula the Plaintiff has to undergo caesarean delivery with any subsequent pregnancies. She is at a risk for further vaginal trauma if she were to attempt vaginal delivery. That the Plaintiff suffers emotionally from her right to choice of a vaginal delivery being removed as a result of the substandard repair of the 4th degree laceration. Her esteem as a woman has been greatly affected.

30. That due to the failure of Dr. Parker, Dr. Bundren and Dr. Soorena Fatehchelir to correctly repair the 4th degree laceration resulting in rectovaginal fistula, the Plaintiff is limited in choice of long-term birth control options. That her only option for long-term birth control without permanent sterilization is the Implanon, which is inserted in the arm and lasts for three years. Further, she requires minor surgery for the implant removal.

31. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered and continues to suffer mental and physical pain and distress.

32. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned wrongful acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff lost the right to enjoyment of her life and the accompanying economic damages.

33. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s and/or its employees, servants, agents or contractors intentional or reckless acts and/or conduct and/or omissions, Plaintiff Cassandra Smith, a/k/a Cassandra Millspaugh suffered and sustained serious bodily injuries and damages, thus resulting in her permanent injury.

34. That as a result of Defendant’s and/or its employees, servants, agents or contractors intentional or reckless acts and/or conduct and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have been substantially damaged in sums in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) for which Plaintiffs should recover judgment.

35. That Plaintiffs are further entitled to punitive damages for the wanton and reckless disregard for Cassandra Smith, alkia Cassandra Millspaugh’s well-being after the initial injury as exhibited hereinabove on by the Defendants in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00).

36. That the Defendants, fully being made aware of Plaintiff Cassandra Smith, a/Ic/a Cassandra Millspaugh’s special needs, and knowing what was necessary to protect her from injury, intentionally and recklessly refused to secure or observe or protect her from injury, thereby intentionally or recklessly causing her initial injury and accompany physical and emotional damages.

37. That the acts and omissions of the Defendants in this regard constituted a reckless disregard for the mental and physical well-being of Plaintiff Cassandra Smith, a/Ic/a Cassandra Millspaugh.

38. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00), representing pecuniary losses suffered in the form of companion care services which had been performed on behalf of Cassandra Smith, a/k/a Cassandra Millspaugh, by her spouse prior to and in anticipation after this injury.

39. That Cassandra Smith, alk/a Cassandra Millspaugh’s mental suffering and distress were additionally enhanced by the failure and refusal of Defendants to provide her with information as to circumstances surrounding the failed fistula repair and by failing to repair in a reasonably timely manner.

40. That these Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) representing the loss of spousal enjoyment and their right to the enjoyment of same.

41. That these Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) for the mental and physical anguish and distress they suffered as a result of the reckless and intentional disregard for their rights and well-being by the Defendants as stated above.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiffs are entitled to seek, and do hereby seek an award of aforementioned compensatory damages against the Defendants for a sum in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) and do hereby seek an additional award of punitive damages due to the gross negligence of the Defendants, to be determined by the trier of fact in this case, together with the awarding of attorney fees, costs, interest, and other relief this Court deems just and proper


Hillcrest Medical Center appeared and answered as follows;

1. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph I and therefore denies the same.

2. This Defendant would admit it is a hospital located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, but would clarify that The Peggy V. Helmerich Women’s Health Center is simply the name of a building on the HMC grounds and is not a separate entity as alleged in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required.

4. HMC would state in response to Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition that it is a hospital licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma.

5. This Defendant denies the damages as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

6. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the statements in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 6, but at this time has no reason to deny jurisdiction is appropriate.

7. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the statements in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 7, but at this time has no reason to deny venue is appropriate.

8. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 8 and therefore, denies same.

9. Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition does not appear to be directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required.

II. FACTS

10. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 10 and therefore denies the same.

11. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the same.

12. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

13. Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

14. Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

15. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

16. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the same.

17. Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

18. Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is not directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

19. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 19 and therefore denies the same.

20. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 20 and therefore denies the same.

21. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 21 and therefore denies the same.

22. Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition does not appear to be directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

23. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 23 and therefore denies the same.

24. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 24 and therefore denies the same.

25. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 25 and therefore denies the same.

26. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 26 and therefore denies the same.

27. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 27 and therefore denies the same.

28. This Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to be able to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 28 and therefore denies the same.

29. Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Petition does not appear to be directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

30. Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Petition does not appear to be directed to this Defendant, therefore no response is required. Should a response be required, HMC denies the allegations of negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

31. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

32. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

33. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

34. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof

35. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

36. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

37. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

38. This Defendant denies the damages as set forth in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

39. This Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

40. This Defendant denies the damages as set forth in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

41. This Defendant denies the damages as set forth in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

42. This Defendant denies the damages as set forth in the “WHEREFORE” Paragraph of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. All defenses set forth in Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012.

2. HMC at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards

of care.

3. HMC and/or its agents, servants and/or employees at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

4. This Defendant specifically denies any allegations that its conduct contributed to and/or caused Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

5. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by independent factors over which this Defendant had no control and occurred absent any negligence or breach of any applicable standards of care on the part of Defendant.

6. HMC denies that it or any of its agents, servants and/or employees were negligent, and contends that they, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. HMC states that at all times the care, treatment and services performed for the Plaintiff was commensurate with the standards of care with other nurses in the community or practicing under the same or similar circumstances.

8. Should this Defendant be found guilty of professional negligence this Defendant states that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

9. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

10. HMC states that it was not grossly negligent and did not act in reckless disregard as alleged by Plaintiffs.

11. HMC states that any injuries complained of were natural, probable, and proximate results of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of Cassandra Smith, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiffs may have sustained were not the result of negligence, but were instead the result of natural occurrences within Cassandra Smith’s body.

12. The Plaintiffs fail to set forth a legal duty which was breached by this Defendant.

13. Defendant claims all limitations on damages and relief pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-1708.1, including, but not limited to, subsection F and F-I.

14. The Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the Substantive and Procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Sections 2 and 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution and would further violate HMC’s rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

15. HMC claims all of the limitations on damages and relief afforded by 23 0.S. § 15 and 61.2.

16. HMC invokes all defenses and relief afforded by the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 including, but not limited to, 12 0.S. § 19.

17. Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer, including any and all Affirmative Defenses, up to and until the Pretrial Conference in this matter as discovery is not complete and therefore every defense available and applicable to Defendant may not be known.

Defendant Soorena Fatehchehr, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. This Defendant admits that the medical treatment to the Plaintiff occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied. /

3. Denied.

4. Admitted to the extent that the Defendant, Soorena Fatehchehr, M.D., is a health care provider licensed to perform occupational skills in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Denied,

6. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

7. Admitted.

8. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph S of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

9. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

10. Admitted.

11. It is admitted that Mahate Parker, M.D. participated in the episiotomy. However, Defendant denies the remaining allegation.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14, Denied.

15. Denied.

16. This Defendant i.s without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition arid therefore the same are denied.

20. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

21. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

22. Denied.

23, This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

24. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

25. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

26, This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Anended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

27. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

28. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

41. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. All defenses set forth in Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012.

2. Defendant at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

3. This Defendant specifically denies any allegations that his conduct contributed to and!or caused Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by independent factors over which this Defendant had no control and occurred absent any negligence or breach of any applicable standards of care on the part of Defendant.

5. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by an entity or entities or third party or third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

6. This Defendant denies that he was negligent, and contends that he, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. Defendant states that at all tines the care, treatment and services perfoiwed for the Plaintiff was commensurate with the standards of care.

8. Should this Defendant be found guilty of professional negligence, this Defendant states that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

9. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 10. This Defendant states that it is not grossly negligent and did not act in reckless disregard as alleged by Plaintiffs.

11. This Defendant states that any injuries complained of were natural, probable, and proximate results of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of Cassandra Smith, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiffs may have sustained were not the result of negligence, but were instead the result of natural occunences within Cassandra Smith’s body.

12. The Plaintiffs fail to set forth a legal duty which was breached by this Defendant.

13. This Defendant claims all limitations on damages and relief pursuant to Okia. Stat, tit. 63, § 1-1708.1, including, but not limited to, subsection F and F-i.

14. The Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the Substantive and Procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Sections 2 and 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution and would further violate Defendant’s tights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

15. This Defendant claims all of the limitations on damages and relief afforded by 23 O.S. § 15 and 61.2.

16. This Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer, including any and all Affirmative Defenses, up to and until the Pretrial Conference in this matter as discovery is not complete and therefore every defense available and applicable to Defendant may not be known.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Defendant prays that he be dismissed from this cause of action with his costs and attorney’s fees expended herein and for any and all other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Defendant Mahate Parker, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. This Defendant admits that the medical treatment to the Plaintiff occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

3. Denied.

4. Admitted to the extent that the Defendant, Mahate Parker, M.D., is a health care provider licensed to perform occupational skills in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Denied.

6. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

7. Admitted.

8. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

9. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

10. Admitted.

11. It is admitted that Mahate Parker, M.D. participated in the episiotomy. However, Defendant denies the remaining allegation.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

20. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

21. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

22. Denied.

23. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

24. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

25. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

26. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

27. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

28. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

41. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. All defenses set forth in Okia. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012.

2. Defendant at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

3. This Defendant specifically denies any allegations that her conduct contributed to andlor caused Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by independent factors over which this Defendant had no control and occurred absent any negligence or breach of any applicable standards of care on the part of Defendant.

5. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by an entity or entities or third party or third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

6. This Defendant denies that she was negligent, and contends that she, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. Defendant states that at all times the care, treatment and services performed for the Plaintiff was commensurate with the standards of care.

8. Should this Defendant be found guilty of professional negligence, this Defendant states that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

41. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. All defenses set forth in Okia. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012.

2. Defendant at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

3. This Defendant specifically denies any allegations that her conduct contributed to andlor caused Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by independent factors over which this Defendant had no control and occurred absent any negligence or breach of any applicable standards of care on the part of Defendant.

5. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by an entity or entities or third party or third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

6. This Defendant denies that she was negligent, and contends that she, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. Defendant states that at all times the care, treatment and services performed for the Plaintiff was commensurate with the standards of care.

8. Should this Defendant be found guilty of professional negligence, this Defendant states that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

Defendant J. Clark Bundren, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. This Defendant admits that the medical treatment to the Plaintiff occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.(

3. Denied.

4. Admitted to the extent that the Defendant, J, Clark Bundren, M.D., is a health care provider licensed to perform occupational skills in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Denied.

6. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

7. Admitted.

8. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

9. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

10. Admitted.

11. It is admitted that Mahate Parker, M.D. participated in the episiotomy. However, Defendant denies the remaining allegation.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.


17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

20. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

21. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

22. Denied.

23. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

24. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

25. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

26. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

27. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

28. This Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore the same are denied.

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

41. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. All defenses set forth in Okia. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012.

2. Defendant at all Limes met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

3. This Defendant specifically denies any allegations that his conduct contributed to and/or caused Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by independent factors over which this Defendant had no control and occurred absent any negligence or breach of any applicable standards of care on the part of Defendant.

5. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by an entity or entities or third party or third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

6. This Defendant denies that he was negligent, and contends that he, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. Defendant states that at all times the care, treatment and services performed for the Plaintiff was commensurate with the standards of care.

8. Should this Defendant be found guilty of professional negligence, this Defendant states that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injury and damages.

9. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 10. This Defendant states that it is not grossly negligent and did not act in reckless disregard as alleged by Plaintiffs.

11. This Defendant states that any injuries complained of were natural, probable, and proximate results of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of Cassandra Smith, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiffs may have sustained were not the result of negligence, but were instead the result of natural occurrences within Cassandra Smith’s body.

12. The Plaintiffs fail to set forth a legal duty which was breached by this Defendant.

13. This Defendant claims all limitations on damages and relief pursuant to Okia. Stat, tit. 63, § 1-1708.1, including, but not limited to, subsection F and F-l.

14. The Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the Substantive and Procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Sections 2 and? of the Oklahoma Constitution and would further violate Defendant’s rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

15. This Defendant claims all of the limitations on damages and relief afforded by 23 0.5. § 15 and 61.2.

16. This Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer, including any and all Affirmative Defenses, up to and until the Pretrial Conference in this matter as discovery is not complete and therefore every defense available and applicable to Defendant may not be known.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Defendant prays that he be dismissed from this cause of action with his costs and attorney’s fees expended herein and for any and all other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, and dismiss The Peggy V. Helmerich Women’s Health Center at Hillcrest Medical Center, an Oklahoma Corporation, as a party Defendant, with prejudice to any re-filing.

All other claims remain pending.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: