Date: 11-30--0001

Case Style: John Dzurilla and Marie Dzurilla v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health Systems, Inc. and Emergency Medicine Physicians of Tulsa County, P.L.L.C.

Case Number: CJ-2014-2358

Judge: Caroline Wall

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Clark Brewster, Jennifer Deangelis and Montgomery Lair

Defendant's Attorney: Mike Barkley, David Graves, Parker Foster for Saint Francis Health System, Inc.

Nathan Clark for Emergency Medicine Physicians of Tulsa County, P.L.L.C.

Description: Tulsa, OK - John Dzurilla and Marie Dzurilla sued Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health Systems, Inc. and Emergency Medicine Physicians of Tulsa County, P.L.L.C. on medical negligence theories claiming:

1. This is an action for battery, invasion of privacy, deceit and medical and corporate ..,,-
negligence resulting in the wrongful death of Tomas Dzurilla on October 7, 2013.

2. Plaintiffs, John Dzurilla and Marie Dzurilla, are the natural parents and next
friend of Tomas Dzurilla ("Tomas"). At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs are residents of r
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. At all times material hereto, SFH is an Oklahoma corporation and medical facility located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. SFH holds itself out to the public, including Plaintiffs and Tomas,
as providing an exceptional level of care and treatment and being adequately staffed with qualified and competent personnel to properly diagnose, treat and care for patients. All personnel treating Tomas at SFH during the times relevant hereto were employees, agents or ostensible agents of SFH and SFHS.

4. At all times material hereto, SFHS is an Oklahoma corporation located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. SFHS owns, controls and/or manages SFH. (SFH and SFHS referred to herein collectively as "SFH.")

5. At all times material hereto, EMP is an Oklahoma limited liability company located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and, upon information and belief, is a subsidiary of Emergency Medicine Physicians, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Canton, Ohio. EMP holds itself out to the public as providing physicians and mid-level medical services superior to that of anyone else. Upon information and belief, EMP has a business relationship with SFH to provide physicians and physician's assistants for treatment of patients in the SFH Trauma Emergency Center ("TEC"). EMP personnel treating Tomas during the times relevant hereto include, but may not be limited to, Randy Engelman, D.O., Lucas Hennings, M.D., Corey Wright, PA-C and Erin Wright, PA-C.

6. All acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in the City of Tulsa, County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma.

7. As required by Okla.Stat.tit.12, §19, Plaintiffs have consulted with a qualified expert who has rendered an opinion that Plaintiffs' claim is meritorious and that Defendants committed professional negligence in their treatment of Tomas. See Affidavit of Jennifer L. De Angelis attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
OPERATIVE FACTS

8. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-7 above.

9. On September 22, 2013, at approximately 9:10 p.m., Tomas was involved in a single vehicle roll-over accident.

10. The on-scene TPD officers noted that Tomas did not have any visible injuries and was communicative. Nevertheless, Tomas' vehicle sustained damage and it was necessary for the first responders to assist in extricating Tomas from his vehicle and assess Tomas' physical condition.

11. EMSA arrived within ten minutes from the time of the accident, stabilized Tomas by placing a precautionary cervical collar on him and transported him to the SFH TEC. On route, EMSA noted that Tomas was alert and oriented times three and had a Glasgow Coma score of 13 to 14.

12. Tomas arrived at the SFH TEC at 9:45 p.m. and was evaluated by Erica Hill, D.O. Tomas was alert and oriented. No areas of concern were noted on the physical exam and there were no visible signs of trauma or injury. Laboratory tests were ordered and the results were within normal limits. The test results also confirmed that Tomas was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The only noted issue was that Tomas may have experienced delusions and made statements capable of disbelief.

13. Dr. Hill reported that Tomas did not suffer an injury in the accident, but Tomas was admitted to SFH under the care of the trauma service physician, Michael Griffin, D.O., Lucas Hennings, M.D. and Corey Wright, PA-C for observation and possible diagnostic testing consisting primarily ofradiology studies.

14. At 9:56 p.m., Richard Hollenbeck, RN recorded a Glasgow Coma Score of 14 and Trauma Score of 12 for Tomas. Both scores are fully consistent with a lack of injury or trauma to Tomas as reflected in Dr. Hill's initial assessment.

15. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Dr. Hennings ordered portable pelvis and chest x- rays. Both studies showed no injuries attributable to the accident.

16. At 10:08 p.m., Dr. Griffin ordered STAT CT scans of Tomas' head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen and pelvis.

17. Over the next hour, Tomas was reportedly assessed by multiple medical providers, including Dr. Hennings, Nurse Hollenbeck and Mr. Wright. Each assessment consistently showed that Tomas did not suffer injury as a result of the accident. He had no complaints of pain and his strength, range of motion and neurological exam were all normal. The medical record documents Tomas was alert and oriented, and responded appropriately to questions and commands. There are no vital signs recorded for Tomas after 10:32 p.m.

18. At approximately midnight on September 23, 2013, Tomas was taken to the radiology department to for CT scans of his head, spine and abdomen. The TEC record states that Tomas was cooperative on his way to radiology. Upon arrival to the radiology department, Tomas attempted to decline the scans, came off the table landing on the floor, and reportedly physically resisted attempts to scan him.

19. SFH personnel both identified and unidentified forcefully controlled Tomas and then strapped him to a backboard in a face-down "prone" position. Also, SFH personnel with consultation and approval from EMP personnel, administered multiple doses of narcotics and respiratory depressants without contemporaneous physician orders prior to the forced the CT scan.

20. Tomas was forced against his will into the CT scanner at approximately 12:20
a.m. on September 23, 2013. His arms and legs were strapped down and he was positioned "prone" with his head clearly malpositioned. SFH/EMP medical providers knew that Tomas had received excessive doses of respiratory depressant narcotics and knew he was placed prone in the scanner, yet the medical records reveal that no monitoring or assessments were performed on Tomas from 12:25 a.m. until 12:44 a.m.

21. Michael Graber, the SFH radiology technician, observed the scan in real time showing that Tomas' airway was occluded due to the manner in which SFH/EMP personnel positioned and immobilized Tomas.

22. Prior to the abdomen scan, Mr. Graber injected contrast into Tomas. While observing the scan, he undoubtedly noticed the interrupted flow of the contrast. In fact, as evident from the medical record, Tomas' heart had stopped beating several minutes prior to this point.

23. At 12:44 a.m., a Code Blue was called and SFH/EMP personnel responded. At 12:48 a.m., Tomas was intubated and after extensive resuscitation, some cardiac and respiratory function returned but only with the assistance of a ventilator and life-sustaining medications.

24. Blood gas studies taken just after 1:00 a.m. confirm that Tomas was without oxygen perfusing his vital organs for a significant period of time during the CT scans. Although the scans confirmed that Tomas suffered no injury from the motor vehicle accident, he suffered an anoxic brain injury and untimely death as a result of the physical force, overmedication, forced CT scan and positional asphyxia.

25. As the days passed, Tomas' condition did not improve. An MRI performed on Tomas' brain showed extensive swelling and herniation consistent with an anoxic brain injury from deprivation of oxygen during the CT scan. Tomas' parents knew that life was fading for their son and were told by SFH that there was no hope for his recovery. Faced with no alternatives, Tomas' parents agreed to terminate artificial life support and Tomas died on October 7, 2013.

26. Throughout Tomas Dzurilla's hospital chart, there are inconsistencies and apparent deletions, amendments and factual omissions from the medical record.

27. Defendants' failure to maintain the integrity of the medical chart is spoliation of the evidence and will result in the Court's instruction to the jury on regarding allowable inferences which can be made on the deleted or destroyed evidence.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Battery/Treatment without Consent/Invasion of Privacy

28. Plaintiffs incorporate herein paragraphs 1-27 as set forth above.

29. Tomas refused and resisted the CT scans occurring between midnight and 12:44
a.m. on September 23, 2013. To the extent that Tomas directly or impliedly consented to the scans, such consent was irrefutably revoked by words and actions prior to the scans.

30. Instead of respecting Tomas' wishes and directives or seeking consultation with qualified medical providers, employees and agents of SFH/EMP forcefully immobilized Tomas by administering narcotics and other CNS depressants, and strapping him to a cervical backboard in a dangerous and life threatening face-down "prone" position all without Tomas' consent.

31. Acts of this nature constitute a battery and invasion of privacy as the acts were unwanted, harmful and a highly offensive touching of Tomas against his will.

32. As a direct and proximate result of SFH/EMP's actions, Tomas Dzurilla died and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, mental pain and anguish and loss of companionship suffered by Plaintiffs all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against SFH and EMP.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Deceit - Spoliation

33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein paragraphs 1-32 as set forth above.

34. SFH and EMP, through their employees and agents, knowingly made false statements and factual omissions in Tomas' medical records and attempted to delete relevant information from the medical record.

35. By these acts, SFH and EMP, through their employees and agents, breached their duty to the patient to maintain the integrity, accuracy, truth and reliability of Tomas' medical record.

36. The deliberate falsification, deletion and attempted deletion of information within Tomas' medical record was done solely to protect the employees and agents' own interests, forsaking the safety of the patient and to obstruct Plaintiffs' legal rights and remedies. Plaintiffs anticipate an order directing or allowing the jury to make certain inferences regarding evidence which has been, altered, amended, deleted or destroyed.

37. As a direct and proximate result of SFH and EMP's deceit, Tomas Dzurilla died and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, mental pain and anguish, and loss of companionship suffered by Plaintiffs all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/I 00 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against SFH and EMP.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence - SFH/SFHS/EMP)

38. Plaintiffs incorporate herein paragraphs 1-37 as set forth above.

39. Tomas' death occurred as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, carelessness and recklessness of SFH and EMP and their employees, agents and ostensible agents. The acts and omissions, when viewed in their totality and compared with reasonably accepted standards, must be characterized as unacceptably deficient. The acts and omissions complained of herein include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, embarked upon a reckless and violent course of treatment that predictably led to the unnecessary, preventable death of Tomas;

B. SFH and EMP, through their employees and agents, nurtured and supported an unsafe patient environment employing techniques which they knew or should have known would expose patients to fatal injury;

C. SFH and EMP, through their employees and agents, violated policies and protocols in place to ensure quality of care and patient safety;

D. SFH and EMP failed to formulate, adopt and/or enforce adequate polices, rules and protocols to ensure quality of care and patient safety;

E. SFH and EMP failed to provide adequate and competent staff to render safe patient care;

F. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, were either inexcusably unaware of or disregarded industry standards and guidelines for safe patient care in this clinical setting;

G. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, were either inexcusably unaware of or disregarded industry standards and manufacturer warnings regarding the safe administration of narcotic medications in this clinical setting;

H. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, were either inexcusably unaware of or disregarded industry standards and guidelines regarding utilization of patient restraints;

I. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, were either inexcusably unaware of or disregarded industry standards and guidelines regarding safe patient positioning during CT scans;

J. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, failed to adequately assess Tomas' condition prior to the CT scans;

K. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, inexcusably disregarded Tomas' patient rights in connection with radiologic testing;

L. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, failed to adequately monitor Tomas or appreciate the significance of Tomas' deterioration during the CT scans which they knew or should have known would result in life-threatening respiratory compromise;

M. SFH, through its agents and employees, was either inexcusably unaware of or disregarded clear indications of Tomas' respiratory distress during the CT scans; and

N. SFH and EMP, through their agents and employees, failed to timely intervene despite clinical signs that Tomas lacked adequate respiratory function.

40. Tomas looked to SFH for treatment and had no pre-existing relationship with any physician or provider treating him during the relevant time periods. Therefore, SFH is directly liable for its own corporate negligence and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employees, agents and ostensible agents.

41. EMP is the employer of several providers treating Tomas during the relevant time
periods. These providers include, but may not be limited to, Randy Engelman, D.O., Lucas Hennings, M.D., Corey Wright, PA-C, and Erin Wright, PA-C. Therefore, EMP is directly liable for its own corporate negligence and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employees.

42. The medications, devices and restraints utilized in connection with the performance of the CT scans on Tomas Dzurilla were under the exclusive control and management of SFH. A combination of these techniques and medications used by SFH and EMP personnel rendered Tomas unconscious and helpless. SFH and EMP breached their duty to properly care for Tomas. Tomas' injuries and subsequent death were of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.

43. As a direct and proximate result of SFH and EMP's negligence, Tomas Dzurilla died and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, mental pain and anguish and loss of companionship suffered by Plaintiffs all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against SFH and EMP.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Survivor's Claim

44. Plaintiffs incorporate herein paragraphs 1-43 as set forth above.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and other acts and omissions of the defendants, Tomas suffered severe physical and mental anguish in connection with his death and medical expenses in an amount in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars and No/100 ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against all Defendants.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants, Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health System, Inc., and Emergency Medical Physicians of Tulsa County, PLLC, jointly and severally, as follows:

A. For their First Claim for Relief set forth above, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health System, Inc., and Emergency Medical Physicians of Tulsa County, PLLC for damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, mental pain and anguish and loss of companionship all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/ I 00 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) to deter said Defendants from committing such recklessness and gross negligence in the future and to apprise the public at large that society does not condone such actions or omissions to act.

B. For their Second Claim for Relief set forth above, Plaintiffs seek judgment against the Defendants Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health System, Inc., and Emergency Medical Physicians of Tulsa County, PLLC for damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, mental pain and anguish and loss of companionship all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) to deter said Defendants from committing such recklessness and gross negligence in the future and to apprise the public at large that society does not condone such actions or omissions to act.

C. For their Third Claim for Relief set forth above, Plaintiffs seek judgment against the Defendants Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health System, Inc., and Emergency Medical Physicians of Tulsa County, PLLC for damages in the form of medical and burial expenses, economic loss, grief, anxiety, decedent's physical and mental pain and suffering, mental pain and anguish and loss of companionship all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) to deter said Defendants from committing such recklessness and gross negligence in the future and to apprise the public at large that society does not condone such actions or omissions to act.

D. For their Fourth Claim for Relief set forth above, Plaintiffs seek judgment against the Defendants Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Saint Francis Health System, Inc., and Emergency Medical Physicians of Tulsa County, PLLC for damages in the form of decedent's physical and mental pain and suffering all in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/I 00 Dollars ($75,000.00). Plaintiffs further seek an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in excess of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) to deter said Defendants from committing such recklessness and gross negligence in the future and to apprise the public at large that society does not condone such actions or omissions to act.

E. For the costs of this action, interest as provided by law, and for all other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice as to Emergency Medicine Physicians of Tulsa County, P.L.L.C..

Case settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: