Date: 07-14-2014

Case Style: Margaret Baldwin and Estate of Maxine Anderson v. Saint Simeons Episcopal Home, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2013-3883

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: James R. Lloyd

Defendant's Attorney: Douglas M. Borochoff and Charles Anthony McSoud

Description: Margaret Baldwin and Estate of Maxine Anderson v. Saint Simeons Episcopal Home, Inc.

1. The nursing home that is the subject of this action is located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. All acts of negligence and omission by Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. Decedent Anderson was a resident of Oklahoma at the time of his death.
4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper with this Court.
5. Anderson died on or about December 28, 2012.
6. Tulsa County Probate Court issued Letters of Special Administration to Margaret. Baldwin on May 9,2013 for the Estate of Maxine Anderson.
7. Defendant Saint Simeon’s Episcopal Home, Inc. (“Saint Simeon’s”) is licensed by the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State Department of Health, to operate a full-care nursing home facility, subject to provisions of the Oklahoma statutes and rules and regulations adopted by the State Board of Health.
8. Defendant is the operator of the nursing facility Saint Simeon’s Episcopal Home, where all acts of negligence and omissions by Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees occurred.
9. Defendant is a proper party for the allegations made by Plaintiff in this suit.
10. Defendant caused injuries to Anderson.
11. During all relevant times herein, Anderson was a resident of Saint Simeon’s Episcopal Home.
12. Saint Simeon’s Episcopal Home is a facility licensed as a full-care nursing home, and subject to the provisions and responsibilities promulgated by the OKLAHOMA NURSiNG HOME CARE ACT, 63 OKLA. STAT. 1981, §1-19O1 et, seq.
COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE
13. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set out in ¶f 1-12 of the Petition as if fully set forth herein.
14. After accepting Anderson as a resident, Defendant was under a continuing duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to provide a safe facility and would design and implement an individual care plan best suited to Anderson’s needs to keep her safe and achieve her highest practical well-being.
15. Defendant had a continuing duty to implement said individual care plan so as to give resident Anderson the highest practical medical condition and comfort.
16. When Defendant accepted Anderson as a resident and accepted state frnds, Defendant had actual notice that Anderson had physical and mental disabilities.
17. During the time of Anderson’s residence at Defendant’s facility, Defendant’s negligence caused Anderson’s medical conditions to drastically deteriorate.
18. During the time of Anderson’s residence at Defendant’s facility, Defendant failed to follow standards as required by Oklahoma and federal law and Code of Federal Regulations.
19. The mental and physical injuries suffered by Anderson were caused by the negligence of Defendant, its agents, servants and employees.
20. Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the negligent actions, acts or omissions of its agents, employees, and doctors on staff.
21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has incurred additional medical expenses caused by Defendant’s collapse of care for Anderson.
22. Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of its servants.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages in a sum in excess of $10,000, plus such costs, prejudgment interest, and other relief this Court deems equitable and just.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff demands punitive damages in judgment against Defendant for its conduct that constitutes reckless, intentional and malicious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff, pursuant to 23 OKLA. STAT. §9.1, Rodebush vs. Oklahoma Nursing Homes, Ltd., 867 P.2d 1241 (Okla. 1993).

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: