Date: 04-04-2016

Case Style: Bethani Baum v. Mays Home Healthcare, Inc. and Central Pyramid Accounting, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2014-6946

Judge: Thomas E. Price

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Bryan King

Defendant's Attorney: Jo Anne Deaton and Denelda Richardson

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Bethani Baum sued Mays Home Healthcare, Inc. and Central Pyramid Accounting, Inc. on intentional infliction of emotional distress theories claiming:


1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
2. That the Defendant, Mays HHC is an Oklahoma corporation whose principle place of business is in Antlers, Oklahoma and who has does business in Oklahoma and Texas, including specifically, Oklahoma City.
3. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as personal jurisdiction over the parties.
4. Venue is properly laid in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma as the acts giving rise to this action arose herein.
5. Ms. Baum was formerl y employed by Mays HHC.
6. That on or about March 25, 2014, while employed by Mays HHC, Ms. Baum suffered a work-related injury involving her left shoulder, neck and head. Ms. Baum's work- related injury is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Oklahoma, and Mays HBC has not contested compensability of the work-related injury.
7. Because Ms. Baum's injuries occurred while performing work for the Mays HHC, Ms. Baum retained an attorney and filed a Workers Compensation Claim.
8. As a result of her work-related injury, Ms. Baum received medical treatment and
prescription medication under the direction of and with the authorization of Mays HHC and its
insurance earner.
9. Ms. Baum's work-related medical treatment included work restrictions, prescription medication and appointments which caused her to miss work.
10. On any occasion when Ms. Baum missed regularly scheduled work hours due to her work-related injury, she did so at the direction of Mays HHC, or with the permission of Mays HHC.
11. On or about March 25, 2014, while Ms. Baum was still under active medical treatment for her work-related injury, Mays HBC terminated Ms. Baum's employment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliatory Discharge -Violation of 85 O.S. §341) Plaintiff adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-11 above.
12. Mays HHC's termination of Ms. Baum's employment was for the sole reason of her being absent from work or for the purpose of avoiding payment of temporary benefits under the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act, or was primarily and substantially motivated by these objectives.
13. Mays HHC's termination of Ms. Baum's employment constitutes an act of discrimination and/or retaliation against Ms. Baum for (I) suffering a work-related injury; (2) filing a workers' compensation claim; and/or (3) retaining a lawyer for representation regarding her workers' compensation claim.
14. As a direct result of Mays HHC's wrongful, unlawful, and retaliatory discharge of Ms. Baum, Ms. Baum has sustained damages including but not limited to loss of past and future income, mental anguish and emotional d istress in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.
15. Mays HHC's actions were in reckless disregard for the rights of others and/or were intentional and with malice, and are of such a nature that punitive damages, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, should be awarded.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
Plaintiff adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-14 above.
16. Mays HHC's termination of Ms. Baum constitutes conduct which is umeasonable, callous, reckless, and so extreme as to go beyond all bounds of decency and beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.
17. By terminating Ms. Baum's employment, Mays HHC intended to cause emotional distress to Ms. Baum, or knew that there was a substantial probability that emotional distress would result from the termination of Ms. Baum 's employment under the facts and circumstances.
18. As a result of Mays HHC's conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Ms. Baum has sustained damages including mental anguish, humiliation, emotional distress and indignity.
19. HHC's actions were in reckless disregard for the rights of others and/or were intentional and with malice, and are of such a nature that punitive damages, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, should be awarded.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: