Date: 10-16-2015

Case Style: Jimmy Brown v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. and Charles Pritchard, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2013-4351

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fred Stoops

Defendant's Attorney: Jennifer Annis and Rachel Hubner

Description: Tulsa, OK - Jury finds in favor of Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. and Charles Pritchard, M.D.

Jimmy Brown sued Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. and Charles Pritchard, M.D. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

1. Jimmy Brown, at all times relevant hereto, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Charles Pritchard, M.D. is a physician who, at all times relevant hereto, was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma and had an office located in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
3. Defendant Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. is an Oklahoma corporation :
with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma and whose service agent is listed as David L. Harper, 10901 East 48th St., Tulsa, OK 74146.
JURISDICTION AN]) AUTHORITY
4. This action is brought before this Court for the reason that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution for the United States. 12 U.S. §2004(F).
5. Pursuant to 120.S. § 134, venue to proper for the reason that one or more of the defendants has a principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6. This action is brought before this Court against a business that is licensed under the laws of the State of Oklahoma for damages and injuries based on torts arising out of patient care. 63 OS. §860.4.
7. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §2004(F), this Court has subject jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein.
FACTS COMJ1ON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
8. Paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim.
9. This lawsuit results from the negligence of the defendants in the medical care and treatment of Jimmy Brown.
10. On or about December 13, 2011, Jimmy Brown underwent a transurethral resection of bladder tumors (greater than 5 cm) with installation of chemotherapy, mitomycin C performed by Charles Pritchard, M.D. at Oklahoma Surgical Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
11. During the surgery, Defendant Pritchard perforated the bladder of Plaintiff. He failed to recognize the perforation. Defendant Pritchard proceeded to administer the with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma and whose service agent is listed as David L. Harper, 10901 East 48th St., Tulsa, OK 74146.
JURISDICTION AN]) AUTHORITY
4. This action is brought before this Court for the reason that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution for the United States. 12 U.S. §2004(F).
5. Pursuant to 120.S. § 134, venue to proper for the reason that one or more of the defendants has a principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6. This action is brought before this Court against a business that is licensed under the laws of the State of Oklahoma for damages and injuries based on torts arising out of patient care. 63 OS. §860.4.
7. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §2004(F), this Court has subject jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein.
FACTS COMJ1ON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
8. Paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim.
9. This lawsuit results from the negligence of the defendants in the medical care and treatment of Jimmy Brown.
10. On or about December 13, 2011, Jimmy Brown underwent a transurethral resection of bladder tumors (greater than 5 cm) with installation of chemotherapy, mitomycin C performed by Charles Pritchard, M.D. at Oklahoma Surgical Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
11. During the surgery, Defendant Pritchard perforated the bladder of Plaintiff. He failed to recognize the perforation. Defendant Pritchard proceeded to administer the chemotherapy which leaked out of the perforated bladder. The chemotherapy liquid poured outside the bladder of Mr. Brown into his abdominal cavity where it caused significant damage.
12. On or about December 17, 2011, Jimmy Brown returned to Oklahoma Surgical Hospital complaining of severe abdominal pain, decreased appetite, increased fever and urinary retention where he was instructed to follow up with Defendant Pritchard.
13. On or about December 19, 2011, Jimmy Brown was admitted by Dr. Pritchard at Saint Francis Hospital.
14. That a CT cystogram demonstrated a persistent bladder perforation and a foley and bilateral nephrostomy tubes were surgically placed to bypass his badly damaged bladder, to allow Mr. Brown to void.
15. Defendant Pritchard was no longer able to adequately care for the necessary treatment of Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was then placed under the care of Dr. Richard Saint.
16. That on or about May 7, 2012, Dr. Saint performed a radical cystectomy, removal of the entire bladder, nearby lymph nodes, part of the uretha, part of his prostate and created a urinary reservoir within Mr. Brown’s abdomen out of his intestines to repair the damage done by the previous surgical error of Dr. Pritchard.
17. That as a result of the negligence of Dr. Pritchard’s negligence, Plaintiff continues to have abdominal pain over his pouch and has to self catheter himself in his abdomen every two hours.
18. Further, as a result of the negligence of the defendants, Jimmy Brown has suffered severe and permanent injuries as well as emotional and, mental trauma as well significant past medical expenses plus future medical expenses.
19. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, Jimmy Brown has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and emotional trauma as well as economic damages.
CAUSE OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF - BREACH OF THE STANDARD OF CARE
20. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §2010(B) and (C), Plaintiff hereby adopts by reference each and every allegation set forth in detail in paragraphs I through 19.
21. Jimmy Brown suffered injuries, previously described above.
22. The defendants previously described herein, failed to adhere to the national standard of care in their treatment of Mr. Brown, and either did not possess or exercise that degree of knowledge, skill, care and diligence possessed and exercised by physicians in their same field of practice.
23. Plaintiffs injuries could have been prevented and were the direct result of the aforementioned acts and omissions of defendants.
24. The plaintiff trusted and relied upon the professional opinions rendered by Defendants and followed Defendants’ medical advice and treatment.
25. The conduct of Defendants constitute a breach of the standard of care a physician owes to a patient for which she is liable and for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual or compensatory damages.

The Pre-Trial Order entered by the Court provided:

* * *

B. General Statement of Facts:
Plaintiff Jimmy Brown was diagnosed with bladder cancer in August 2011 by Defendant, Dr. Charles Pritchard. Dr. Pritchard performed surgery in August 2011 to remove the tumors. Thereafter, Plaintiff received the induction phase (six treatments) of BCG, an immunotherapy, during which BCG was instilled (injected) into Plaintiffs bladder and later voided out.

On December 7, 2011, Dr. Pritchard used a scope to examine Plaintiffs bladder and discovered the cancer had returned. Dr. Pritchard performed a second surgery on Mr. Brown on December 13, 2011. After completing the surgery, but before Mi. Brown was discharged, Dr. Pritchard instilled (injected) a chemotherapy drug, Mitomycin-C, into Mr. Brown’s bladder. After an hour, the Mitomycin-C was drained and Plaintiff was discharged.
After the surgery, Plaintiff went to the emergency department on December 13 and 17,
2011 with complaints of pain. He also went to Urologic Specialists of Tulsa on
December 15, 2011, and returned again on December 19, 2011. Following the December
19, 2011 visit, he was hospitalized by Dr. Pritchard and diagnosed with a perforation in
the upper wall of the bladder. *
Plaintiff contends that during the second surgery, Dr. Pritchard perforated his bladder, which allowed the Mitomycin-C to leak into his abdomen and cause permanent damage.
Defendant denies these allegations and contends that the perforation happened several days after the surgery, and was caused by an inflammatory response to the Mitomycin-C. Defendant further contends that he met standard of care at all times. Defendant also denies that his alleged acts or omissions caused Plaintiffs injuries.
* Defendants object to this paragraph.
C. Plaintiff’s Contentions:
1. List All Theories of Recovery and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.
Medical Negligence, Common Law, Breach of Standard of Care, Res Ipsa
Loquitor*, Loss of Consortium, and Vicarious liability.
2. List Damages or Relief Sought.
a. Personal Injuries $75,000.00 +
b. Pain and Suffering — past & future $75,000.00 +
c. Medical and Hospital Expenses $75,000.00 +
* Defendants object to any claim of Res Ipsa Loquitor as it has never been pled and there is no expert testimony to support it.
D. Defendant’s Contentions:
1. List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.
Grounds for Defense Applicable Statute, Ordinance,
Common Law
a. General denial of negligence. Common Law, OUJI 3rd
b. The alleged injuries and damages OUJI 3rd
to the Plaintiff were the result of
intervening and/or superseding
causes, over which Dr. Pritchard
had no control.
c. Any injuries and damages Common Law, OUJI 3rd
complained of are the natural,
probable, and proximate result
of the physical condition, anatomy
and physiology of Plaintiff,
and any injuries or damages which
Plaintiff may have sustained were not
the result of any acts or omissions of
Dr. Pritchard.
d. Any damages or injuries Common Law, OUJI 3rd
sustained by Plaintiff were caused
by unrelated conditions as a
result of unforeseen or unavoidable
complications due to the underlying
condition of Plaintiff, for
which Dr. Pritchard is not
responsible.
e. At all times Dr. Pritchard met Common Law
or exceeded the applicable
standard of care.
f. At all times employees, Common Law
agents, or representatives of USO
met or exceeded the applicable
standard of care.
g. Plaintiff is precluded from recovering 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1
medical bills that have been paid for by
a third party for which that third party
does not possess, claim, demand, or
assert a right of subrogation or recovery.
h. Plaintiff is only entitled to admit the 12 O.S. § 3009.1
actual amounts paid for any doctor bills, hospital bills, ambulance service bills, drug bills, and other similar bills incurred in his treatment.
i. Plaintiffs alleged injuries were not a direct Common law, OUJI 3d result of any medical care or treatment Dr.
Pritchard rendered.
E. Defendant’s Claims for Relief: (List Any Claims of Relief Sought (By Cross-Claim, Counterclaim, or Set-Off), and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon)

Outcome: FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL ON 10-12-2015 THROUGH 10-16-2015. BOTH SIDES PRESENT IN OPEN COURT AND ANNOUNCE READY FOR TRIAL. PLAINTIFF PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY FRED STOOPS AND CARMEN STOOPS. DEFENDANT PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY JENNIFER ANNIS AND RACHEL FIELDS.
THE JURORS ARE CALLED AND SWORN TO QUALIFICATIONS. THE JURY IS IMPANELED AND EXAMINED FOR CAUSE. THE JURORS ARE ACCEPTED FOR CAUSE.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE MADE AND NO JUROR WERE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE.
12 JURORS WERE ACCEPTED AND SWORN TO TRY THE CASE.

FILE MINUTE:
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

PLAINTIFF: 3
DEFENDANT: 3

THE FOLLOWING JUROR WAS EXCUSED FOR CAUSE: NONE
THE FOLLOWING JURORS ARE ACCEPTED AND SWORN TO TRY THE CAUSE: 12
ALTERNATE: 1
OPENING STATEMENTS ARE MADE. WITNESSES SWORN. RULE WAS INVOKED. COURT REPORTER LISA FOSTER. PLAINTIFF PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. DEFENDANT MOVES FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ,
OVERRULED. . DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS.

BOTH SIDES REST.

THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED AS TO THE LAW. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. THE SWEARING OF THE BAILIFF IS WAIVED AND ON 10-16-2015 AT 11:00 AM, THE JURY RETIRES FOR DELIBERATION IN CUSTODY OF THE BAILIFF. ON 10-16-2015 AT 11:30 AM., THE JURY RETURNS INTO OPEN COURT WITH THEIR VERDICT, WHICH IS READ IN OPEN COURT, ORDERED RECORDED AND FILED, AND IS TO WIT:


VERDICT FORM

WE, THE JURY, IMPANELED AND SWORN IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE, DO, UPON OUR OATHS, FIND THE ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT.

12 JURORS CONCURRING, SIGNED THE FOREPERSON. JURY DISCHARGED.



WITNESSES SWORN: 10


ALL PER JOURNAL ENTRY TO BE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS.

Plaintiff's Experts: Philip Mewhall, M.D.

Defendant's Experts: Charles McWilliams, M.D.

Comments: