Date: 05-07-2015

Case Style: Titia Brown v. Carrington Place of Tulsa, LLC d/b/a Sand Springs Nursing & Rehabilitation a/k/a Oakdale Manor and Traditions Senior Management, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2013-2821

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District court, Tulsa County, Oklahoa

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

Defendant's Attorney: David McPhail and Matthew D. Martin, III

Description: Tulsa, OK - Titia Brown, Administrator of the Estate of Charlotte Brown and Charlotte Brown, Decesased, sued Carrington Place of Tulsa, LLC d/b/a Sand Springs Nursing & Rehabilitation a/k/a Oakdale Manor and Traditions Senior Management, Inc. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff, Titia Brown, is a surviving child of Charlotte Brown, deceased, and Special Administrator of the Estate of the Decedent.
2. The Estate of Decedent is located in this judicial district.
3. Defendants are licensed by the State of Oklahoma to provide medical services.
4. Defendant Carrington Place of Tulsa, LLC d/b/a Sand Springs Nursing & Rehab aikia Oakdale Manor (“Oakdale”) is a domestic for profit company regularly conducting business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
5. Defendant Traditions Senior Management, Inc. (“Traditions”), is a foreign for profit corporation, regularly conducting business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6. The acts and omissions of Defendants occurred in this judicial district.
7. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in this judicial district.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
8, Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein by reference.
9. Decedent Charlotte Brown was a resident of Oakdale Manor facility.
10. On July 17, 2009, Decedent had in place a percutaneous endoscopic gastroduodenoscopy (PEG Tube) for purposes of nutrition.
11. On July 17, 2009, Defendant Oakdale, for valuable consideration, agreed and undertook to render personal care to Decedent providing her all services, including necessary and appropriate nursing care, to ensure her health, safety, well-being and quality of life.
12. Defendants, by and through its agents and employees, fully aware of Decedent’s health conditions, were charged with the responsibility of maintaining, cleaning, monitoring, documenting and reporting on a daily basis the PEG site of Decedent.
13. Defendants agents and employees never assessed Decedent’s PEG site nor did they document the condition of Decedent’s PEG site.
14. Defendants agents and employees declined to maintain, clean, monitor, document or report on Decedent’s PEG site on a daily basis.
15. On June 21, 2012, as a direct result of Defendants failure to maintain, clean and monitor Decedent’s PEG site, it was finally discovered that said site had became infested with maggots.
16. Subsequently, Decedent was then transferred to St. John’s so that she could receive immediate and proper treatment for her wounds.
CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference.
18. At all times relevant hereto, Decedent was a resident of Defendants facility.
19. Defendants, for valuable consideration, agreed and undertook to render personal care to Decedent, to furnish Decedent a room, and to provide her all those services, including nursing care, a safe environment and help maintain her quality of life. From the time of such undertaking, Defendants were under a contractual and statutory duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Decedent from injury.
20. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary, reasonable, and proper care regarding the supervision, monitoring, assessment, care, and treatment of Decedent.
21. Further, Defendants failed to assess Decedent’s medical condition and deliver the necessary health care and supervision to Decedent causing her to suffer severe bodily injury.
22. The Defendants violated its standard of care and duty in the case of Decedent and Defendants acts or omissions resulted in Decedent suffering injuries.
23. As a result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiff/Decedent suffered personal injury, including medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).
NEGLIGENT HIRING
24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated herein by reference.
25. Defendants have a duty to hire qualified and competent employees to operate the Oakdale Manor facility.
26. By failing to hire in such a way, and by acting recklessly with complete disregard for the health and well being of the residents of Oakdale Manor, Defendants breached the duty owed to Decedent and all others similarly situated.
27. This breach was the actual and proximate cause of Decedent’s injuries.
28. As a result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiff/Decedent have suffered personal injury, including, medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00).
NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 are incorporated herein by reference.
30. Defendants owed a duty to Decedent and to all of the residents of Oakdale Manor to properly train and supervise its employees to operate the Oakdale Manor facility in a reasonable manner.
31. At all relevant times, Defendants employees were acting within the course and scope of their employment.
32. By failing to properly train and supervise, and by acting recklessly with complete disregard for the health and well-being of the Decedent and all residents of Oakdale Manor, Defendants breached the duty to Decedent.
33. This breach was the actual and proximate cause of Decedent’s injuries.
34. As a result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiff/Decedent suffered personal injury, including, medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00).
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
35. Paragraphs I through 34 are incorporated herein by reference.
36. In addition to the ordinary duty of care, Defendants were also under a duty to comply with federal and state law health care standards and nursing home regulations.
37. Defendants violation of these regulations and statutes was a direct cause of the Decedent’s injuries.
38. As a result of the violation of said regulations and statues, Defendants acted negligently and with reckless disregard for Decedent’s health.
39. Specifically, Defendants willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for said regulations and standards including, but not limited to, those set forth in Requirements for States and Long Term Care Facilities, 42 CFR § 483, et seq; The Residential Care Act, OkIa. Stat. fit 63, § l-8l9through 1-840; theNursing Home CareAct, Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-1901, et seq.; and/or Nursing and Specialized Facilities, OAC 3 10:675 et seq.; Oklahoma Nursing Practices Act, 59 0.5. § 567.1 et seq.; OSDH Regulations for Licensure of Nursing and Specialized Facilities, Chapter 675, 310:675-1-1 et seq., and The Nursing Home Reform Amendments to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 87); caused Defendants to deliver negligent care and treatment to Decedent, directly causing her injuries.
40. As a direct result of Defendants violations of said statutes and regulations, Plaintiff/Decedent have suffered personal injury, including, medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00), interests, and costs including attorney fees.
RESIPSA LOQUITUR
41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein by reference.
42. The Decedent’s severe bodily injuries were due in whole or in part to the Defendants failure to use adequate, foreseeable and necessary medical care and supervision.
43. For the entire duration of her stay, the Decedent was under the exclusive control of the Defendants nursing home at all times concerning the injuries complained of in this petition.
44. Such consequences and inexcusable bodily harm to Decedent do not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.
45. As a proximate or direct cause of the negligence of the Defendants, including actions or lack thereof, Decedent endured physical and mental pain.
46. As a result of Defendants willfiil, wanton, and reckless disregard for Decedent’s care and well-being, Plaintiff/Decedent suffered personal injury, including, medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00), interests, costs, and attorney fees.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
47. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference.
48. That, without waiving any of the foregoing claims or causes of action, the Plaintiff would show that the Defendants breached its contract with Decedent.
49. Under said contract, Defendants, for valuable consideration, agreed and undertook to render personal care to Decedent, to furnish Decedent a room, and to provide her all those services, including nursing care, a safe environment and to help maintain her quality of life. From the tine of such undertaking, Defendants was under a contractual and statutory duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Decedent from injury.
50. Defendants breached said contract by failing to exercise ordinary, reasonable, and proper care regarding the supervision, monitoring, assessment, care, and treatment of Decedent.
51. Further, Defendants breached said contract by failing to assess Decedent’s medical condition and deliver the necessary health care and supervision to Decedent causing her to suffer severe bodily injury.
52. As a result of Defendants willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for Decedent’s care and well-being in breach of contract, Plaintiff7Decedent have suffered personal injury, including, medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and other actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00), interests, costs, and attorney fees.
PUMTIVE DAMAGES
53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein by reference.
54. The willful, wanton, grossly negligent and reckless conduct of Defendants, its corporate office, officers, board members, owners, agents, servants, and employees caused Defendants to deliver care and treatment with reckless disregard and indifference to the health and well-being of Decedent, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages under Oklahoma law.
55. The acts of the Defendants were wrongful, culpable, and so egregious that punitive damages in a sum that exceeds Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) should be awarded against it to set an example to others similarly situated that such inexcusable conduct will not be tolerated in our community.

The defendant answered as follows:

I.
Every allegation in Plaintiffs Petition is denied by this Defendant unless specifically admitted in this Answer.
II.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiff s Petition, and the same are therefore denied.
III.
The allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition are denied.
Iv.
With regard to the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition, Defendants admit that Carrington Place of Tulsa, L.L.C., d/b/a Sand Springs Nursing & Rehab is a validly- formed and existing Oklahoma limited liability company, which has been authorized to conduct and maintain a nursing facility known as Sand Springs Nursing & Rehab in Sand Springs, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, since November, 2011. This Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegation that it is “a/k/a Oakdale Manor.”
V.
The allegations in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition do not relate to this answering Defendant and therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition are denied.
VI.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition contain legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition are denied.
VII.
With regard to the allegations in paragraph 9 and 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition, Defendants admit that the decedent, Charlotte Brown, was a resident of Sand Springs Nursing & Rehab, and that she had in place a percutaneous endoscopic gastroduodenoscopy (PEG Tube).
VIII.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41, 42,43,44,45,46,47,
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
Ix.
Defendant denies the prayer for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Petition.
x.
Since discovery has not yet begun, this Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer in any particular.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
1. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, either in whole or in part.
2. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred in whole or in part by applicable statutes of limitation and/or the doctrine of laches andJor the doctrine of estoppel.
3. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the provisions of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, Laws 2009, HB 1603, c. 228, § 2, effective November 1,2009.
4. Defendant denies any negligence in the care and treatment of Myrtle Merritt during her residence as a patient at the subject nursing facility from 2004 until her discharge in February,
2012.
5. Defendant denies that any act or failure to act on the part of any agent, servant or employee of Defendant caused and/or contributed to any injury to the subject resident.
6. Defendant asserts that the subject resident’s injuries and/or medical conditions, if any, preexisted her admission to the facility or were proximately caused by the negligence of Plaintiff, or of third parties over whom Defendant exercised no control.
7. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief premised upon a violation of Title XVIII or Title XIX of the Social
Security Act [42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 & 1396 et seq. and their implementing regulations 42 C.F.R. §
483.1 et seq.], as she has no private right of action under the Act, nor does she have standing to assert a violation under the Act as sole responsibility for enforcement of the Act lies with federal (Department of Human Services) or state (Oklahoma State Health Department) officials.
8. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief premised upon a violation of The Residential Care Act, 63 O.S.
§ 1-819 et seq., as she has no private right of action under the Act, nor does she have standing to assert a violation under the Act as sole responsibility for enforcement of the Act lies with state (Oklahoma State Health Department) officials.
9. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief premised upon a violation of The Residential Care Act, 63 O.S.
§ 1-819 et seq., as the subject facility is not a “Residential Care Home” as defined under the Act, 63 O.S. § 1-820(1 1), and thus is exempt from compliance with the Act.
10. Defendant denies the existence of any contract with the Plaintiff to the extent the purpose of which was to provide to resident anything other than “ordinary care” of a type routinely provided in a nursing home setting.
11. Defendant asserts that to the extent an Admissions Agreement governing payment terms and conditions was created with the Plaintiff, Defendant denies its breach in any fashion, and more specifically, denies its breach as alleged by Plaintiff as the care and treatment the subject resident received was proper and consistent with the prevailing standard of care for such medical treatment.
12. Defendant asserts Plaintiff has failed to assert a failure to perform (breach) by Defendant under the Admissions Agreement, but rather only an inadequate performance in that nursing home care and treatment was provided to the subject resident but at a level below her liking which is, in law, a claim of negligence based in tort, not contract.
13. Alternatively, Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages as is her duty pursuant to the claim for breach of contract.
14. Defendant denies that it is liable for any punitive and/or exemplary damages. Defendant denies any act or failure to act on the part of any agent, servant or employee of Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff sufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
15. Defendant asserts that to allow punitive damages to be assessed against Defendant in this case would violate the law as pronounced by the United States Supreme Court in Phillip Morris v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L. Ed. 2d 940 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed. 2d 585 (2003); Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L. Ed. 2d 674 (2001); and BMW ofNorthAmerica, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996).
16. Defendant asserts that any claim for punitive damages is preempted by the federal statutory and regulatory scheme related to nursing homes. Pursuant to the Excessive Fines Clause
of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is specifically limited to the amount of any applicable fine which may be imposed on Defendant by the government of the United States, the State of Oklahoma, and/or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, commission, or body.
17. Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages violates provisions of the
Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions. For example, the imposition of punitive damages under
Oklahoma law would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution in each of the following ways:
(a) Oklahoma law permits the imposition of unlimited punitive damages that are vastly disproportionate to any acts or compensatory injury thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(b) Disproportionate punitive damages constitute an arbitrary and capricious taking of property which is unjustified by any rational governmental interests, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
(c) The award of punitive damages without specific standards to guide the jury’s discretion in determining the amount of damages is contrary to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(d) Oklahoma does not provide a reasonable limit on the amount of any punitive damages award, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(e) The substance of standards of liability under which punitive damages are sought in this case are ambiguous, subjective, and not reasonably ascertainable, fail to give Defendant prior notice of the conduct for which punitive damages may be imposed, and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed, and are “void for vagueness” under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(f) Oklahoma law fails to provide a clear, objective and consistent appellate standard for post-verdict review of punitive damages thus violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
(g) Oklahoma law permits civil punishment upon a standard of proof less than required for the imposition of criminal sanctions.
(h) Oklahoma law permits multiple awards of punitive damages for the same alleged act or omission.
(i) Oklahoma law and procedures governing Plaintiffs punitive damage claim violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution because said claim is penal in nature, while defendant is required to disclose documents and/or other evidence against its interests under the rules of discovery and evidence.
(j) The procedural standards for imposing punitive damages are unduly vague and do not furnish the jury sufficient guidance in determining whether and how much to award punitive damages for the alleged tortious acts of the defendants and thereby permits arbitrary and capricious taking of property in violation of
the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
18. Defendant asserts that any award of punitive damages in this case would be violative of Defendant’s procedural and substantive due process rights because circumstances in this case are insufficient to support the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages and there are inadequate legal and procedural constraints imposed on the fact finder’s discretion to impose such awards. The standard for punitive damages lacks sufficiently objective criteria and procedural safeguards to give a jury adequate criteria on an appropriate range of proportionality regarding punitive damages and inappropriately allows consideration of lawful conduct by a defendant outside the forum state and harm to non-parties rather than limiting the analysis to conduct by the defendant occurring within the forum state only and only involving parties to the litigation. Furthermore, post-trial procedures and standards for trial court scrutiny of punitive damages awards and standards for appellate review of punitive damages awards are insufficient, and, therefore, violate Defendant’s right to due process of law.
19. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against Defendant cannot be sustained, because an award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law which allows Plaintiff to prejudicially emphasize the corporate status of Defendant violates Defendant’s due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and would be improper under the common law and public policy of Oklahoma.
20. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against Defendant cannot be sustained because any award for punitive damages made under a process which fails to
filly bifurcate the issue of punitive damages from the remaining issues would violate Defendant’s due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and would be improper under the common law and public policy of Oklahoma.
21. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is not entitled to a trial by jury on the issue of punitive damages under the United States Supreme Court decision in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L. Ed. 2d 674 (2001).
22. Defendant asserts that to the extent Plaintiff makes any claim pursuant to The Nursing
Home Care Act, 63 0. S. § 1-1901 et seq., for an award of attorneys fees, Defendant asserts that such
a claim is not supported by applicable state law 63 O.S. § 1-1918(F) as amended and effective July
1, 2003, and violates the equal protection provisions of the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
23. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs claims are subject to the provisions of the Oklahoma Affordable Access to Health Care Act, effective July 1, 2003.
24. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to adequately comply with the expert opinion requirements of 12 O.S. § 19(A).
25. Defendant raises the defense of lack of capacity of a party to sue.
26. Plaintiff lacks the standing to bring this action.
27. Defendant asserts the applicability and protections of a binding arbitration agreement which exists between the parties governing the resolution of disputes pursuant to the terms and conditions of the arbitration contract. The Federal Arbitration Act applies to the transaction/agreement between the Defendants and Plaintiff. The Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
28. Defendants assert the applicability and protections of the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L. Ed. 2d 42 (2012) and inNitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard, 133 S. Ct. 500, 184 L. Ed. 2d 328 (2012) which state the controlling law to be applied in this case.
29. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the unforeseeable wrongful or negligent act or omission of persons acting outside the scope of their employment, or of persons over whom this Defendant exercised no control.
30. Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by a pre-existing or post-developing unrelated medical condition, disease, illness or infection of the Plaintiff for which this defendant is not responsible.
31. Defendant asserts that any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by risks known and assumed by Plaintiff, and/or Resident.
32. Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were the result of an unforeseeable or unavoidable complications due to an underlying condition of the Plaintiff, which were not caused by the acts of Defendant.
33. Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by other, unrelated physical or mental or personal conditions of the Plaintiff for which this defendant is not responsible.
34. Defendant asserts that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff were the result of an intervening or supervening cause.
35. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to properly state a cause of action for negligence per Se.
36. Defendant asserts that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to the extent plaintiff seeks relief premised upon a violation of the Nursing Home Care Act, 63 O.S. 1991, § § 1-1901 et seq. and/or Title 310, Chapter 675 of the Oklahoma Regulations for Licensure ofNursing and Specialized Facilities, and/or federal nursing home regulations, as neither the Nursing Home Care Act nor the referenced State regulations or federal regulations establish standards of care in medical liability actions or set forth positive objective standards necessary for a claim of negligence per Se.
37. Defendant asserts that Defendant is a validly-formed corporate entity, and is entitled to the protection of the particular business form it has chosen.
38. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to properly state a claim for relief for negligent hiring, training, supervision and staffing.
39. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish the foundational facts necessary for application of the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
40. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a negligenceper se claim upon which relief can be granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief premised upon a violation of The Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act, 63 O.S. § 1-1901 et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 310, Chapter 675, Oklahoma Administrative Code, as Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a violation of the Act.
41. Whereas discovery has not yet begun, Defendant reserves the right to plead additional defenses as information is made known to it.

Docket
Date Code Description Count Party Amount
06-14-2013 TEXT

Civil relief more than $10,000 Initial Filing.
1
06-14-2013 MEDNEG

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

06-14-2013 DMFE

DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE
$ 2.00
06-14-2013 PFE1

PETITION

Document Available (#1021816778)
$ 163.00
06-14-2013 PFE7

LAW LIBRARY FEE
$ 6.00
06-14-2013 OCISR

Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund
$ 25.00
06-14-2013 CCADMIN02

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on $2 Collections
$ 0.20
06-14-2013 OCJC

Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund
$ 2.00
06-14-2013 OCASA

Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates
$ 5.00
06-14-2013 CCADMIN04

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections
$ 0.50
06-14-2013 LTF

Lengthy Trial Fund
$ 10.00
06-14-2013 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)-2
$ 10.00
06-14-2013 SMIMA

Summons Issued - Mailed by Attorney-2

06-14-2013 TEXT

OCIS has automatically assigned Judge Cantrell, Daman H. to this case.

06-14-2013 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2013-2620514 on 06/14/2013.
Payor:SMOLEN & SMOLEN PLLC Total Amount Paid: $223.70.
Line Items:
CJ-2013-2821: $173.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.
CJ-2013-2821: $6.00 on AC23 Law Library Fee.
CJ-2013-2821: $0.70 on AC31 Court Clerk Revolving Fund.
CJ-2013-2821: $5.00 on AC58 Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates.
CJ-2013-2821: $2.00 on AC59 Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund.
CJ-2013-2821: $2.00 on AC64 Dispute Mediation Fees.
CJ-2013-2821: $25.00 on AC79 OCIS Revolving Fund.
CJ-2013-2821: $10.00 on AC81 Lengthy Trial Fund.

06-28-2013 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR AARON BLOOM, CERTIFIED MAIL, SIGNED J D , ON 6-24-13

Document Available (#1022244824)

07-16-2013 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR SAND SPRINGS NURSING & REHAB CTR, CERTIFIED MAIL, SIGNED ?, 7-12-13

Document Available (#1022335669)

07-18-2013 A

ANSWER TO PLTF'S PETITOIN OF DEFT CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC, D/B/ASAND SPRIGNS NURING & REHAB / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1022241948)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
07-18-2013 A

ANSWER TO PLTF'S PETITION OF DEFT TRADITIONS SENIOR MANAGEMENT INC'S / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1022241952)
TRADITIONS SENIOR MANAGEMENT INC
07-18-2013 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE REQUIRED BY 12 O.S. §2005.2 (DAVID MCPHAIL & MATTHEW D MARTIN III ENTER AS COUNSEL - COVERSHEET ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1022241956)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
12-16-2013 MOQ

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J / CERTIFICAE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1023770026)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
02-19-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: Defendant's motion to quash subpoena is granted, there being no response. Matter set for scheduling conference on 3-10-14 AT 9:00 AM. NOTICE MAILED TO MATTHEW MARTIN AND DONALD SMOLEN.

02-26-2014 O

Order / SEE ABOVE ENTRY/ CERTIFICAE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1024421585)

03-03-2014 MOC

PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFTS OAKDALE MANOR & TRADITIONS SENIOR MANAGEMENT (A/J)

Document Available (#1024423012)
BROWN, TITIA
03-03-2014 REQ

PLTF'S REQUEST TO SET HER MOTION TO COMPEL FOR HEARING (A/J)

Document Available (#1024422979)
BROWN, TITIA
03-06-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: ORDER ENTERED SETTING CASE FOR HEARING ON PL'S MOTION TO COMPEL ON 4-15-14 AT 3:30 PM. NOTICE MAILED TO DONALD SMOLEN AND MATTHEW MARTIN.

03-06-2014 NOH

NOTICE OF HEARING (SEE ENTRY ABOVE) / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1024419425)

03-10-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: CASE COMES ON FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; BY AGREEMENT HEARING IS STRICKEN AND AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER TO BE ENTERED.

03-12-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 1-12-15 AT 10:00 AM.

03-13-2014 SCHO

AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER (OF 3-12-14)

Document Available (#1024588519)

03-21-2014 OBJ

DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1024591476)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
04-14-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: PER DONALD SMOLEN'S OFFICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL SET FOR 4-15-14 IS STRICKEN BY AGREEMENT; AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER TO BE SUBMITTED AND DOCUMENTS SENT OVER TO DEFENDANT'S. MOTION TO COMPEL TO BE RESET UPON APPLICAITON.

04-17-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: GRANTED - STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER.

05-14-2014 CNOTE

CLERK'S NOTE: STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVED ORDER SIGNED BY THE COURT WAS NOT PICKED UP BY PARTIES; FILED BY COURT CLERK.

05-14-2014 O

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document Available (#1025115566)

07-07-2014 MO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS OAKDALE MANOR AND TRADITIONS SENIOR MANAGEMENT / A2J

Document Available (#1026060196)
BROWN, TITIA
07-15-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: ORDER ENTERED SETTING PL'S MOTION TO COMPEL ON 8-21-14 AT 4:00 PM.

07-16-2014 O

ORDER SETTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FOR HEARING / SEE MINUTE ENTRY

Document Available (#1026479321)

08-21-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: UPON THE COURTS OWN MOTION THE HEARING SET ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL IS STRICKEN AS THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RESPOND AND THE MOTION IS CONFESSED BY THE COURT. PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT JOURNAL ENTRY TO THE COURT.

09-18-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: GRANTED - ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO ANSWER AND RESPOND TO PL'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

09-24-2014 O

Order / SEE DOCUMENT / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027200647)

10-02-2014 MOVAC

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (BY ATTY MATTHEW D MARTIN III) A2J

Document Available (#1027418225)
$ 33.00
10-02-2014 OCISR

Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund
$ 25.00
10-02-2014 CCADMIN02

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on $2 Collections
$ 0.20
10-02-2014 OCJC

Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund
$ 2.00
10-02-2014 OCASA

Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates
$ 5.00
10-02-2014 CCADMIN04

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections
$ 0.50
10-02-2014 REQ

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO SET FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE (A/J)

Document Available (#1027418470)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
10-02-2014 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2014-2944078 on 10/02/2014.
Payor:FOLIART HUFF Total Amount Paid: $65.70.
Line Items:
CJ-2013-2821: $33.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.
CJ-2013-2821: $0.70 on AC31 Court Clerk Revolving Fund.
CJ-2013-2821: $5.00 on AC58 Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates.
CJ-2013-2821: $2.00 on AC59 Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund.
CJ-2013-2821: $25.00 on AC79 OCIS Revolving Fund.

10-13-2014 APLI

JOINT APPLICATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND OTHER DEADLINES / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027422598)

10-17-2014 RESP

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027503507)
BROWN, TITIA
10-27-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: GRANTED - ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATES OUT 120 DAYS FROM 1-12-15 TO 5-18-15 AT 10:15 AM AND EXTENDING ALL ASSOCIATED DEADLINES.

11-12-2014 APLI

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT AND/OR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS / A TO J /CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027828811)
BROWN, TITIA
11-17-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: Defendant's motion to vacate order on motion to compel AND PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT AND/OR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT'S ARE set for hearing on 1-6-15 AT 2:00 PM. Apparently there is a discrepancy about what the Court's clerk told counsel for the Defendants. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to resolve the matter prior to hearing.

11-18-2014 O

ORDER CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027832081)

11-19-2014 O

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING ALL ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

Document Available (#1027833478)

11-26-2014 RESP

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT AND / OR SANCTIONS / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027973719)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
12-01-2014 RESP

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT AND/OR SANCTIONS / A2J

Document Available (#1027974470)
CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
12-30-2014 CTFREE

CANTRELL, DAMAN: HEARING SET ON 1-6-15 ON DF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND PL'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS STRICKEN BY AGREEMENT DUE TO MEDIATION AND IF NEEDED WILL BE RESET UPON APPLICATION.

03-30-2015 MO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1029180953)
BROWN, TITIA
04-22-2015 DWP

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE BY PLT AGAINST DEFS

Document Available (#1029072016)
BROWN, TITIA
04-22-2015 DISPCVDMWP

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1 CARRINGTON PLACE OF TULSA LLC
04-22-2015 DISPCVDMWP

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1 TRADITIONS SENIOR MANAGEMENT INC

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: