Date: 01-25-2016

Case Style: Jacque Vavrinak v. Village Health Care Center

Case Number: CJ-2015-3587

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mark Edwards

Defendant's Attorney: No appearance

Description: Tulsa, OK - Jacque Vavrinak sued Village Health Care Center on a medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory claiming:

1. Jacque Vavrinak is a resident of, Wagoner County, State of Oklahoma. She is the Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Ruddle.
2. The Estate of Mary Ruddle is a Probate action, File number PB- 2014-00002 filed in Delaware County, State of Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, The Village Health Care Center was at the time in question a business operating in Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
VENUE
5. Mary Ruddle died in Tulsa County, Oklahoma on October 9, 2013.
6. A Significant portion of the fact witnesses reside and work in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7. Mary Ruddle was an 85 year old woman who had a stroke and required Admission to The Village Health Care Center on August 20, 2013 for long term care.
8. While at her stay at The Village Health Care Center, Ms. Ruddle begin to exhibit symptoms and problems associated with the disease known as clostridium difficile or " C. diff".
9. Ms. Ruddle's C. diff remained improperly identified and inappropriately treated while at the Village Health Care Center.
10. On September 22, 2013, Ms. Ruddle was admitted to St. John Medical Center for another stroke.
11. While at St. John Medical Center, Ms. Ruddle was properly diagnosed with C. diff, however, given the amount of time it had gone untreated, there was nothing that could be done.
12. Mary Ruddle died on October 9, 2013.
13. Employees and/or agency for The Village Health Care Center who provided care or were assigned to provide care to Ms. Ruddle were acting with the course and scope of their employment with The Village Health Care Center at the time care was or should have been given.
14. The Village Health Care Center is vicariously responsible for the negligence of their employees and/or agents. Any negligence on the part of The Village Health
Care Center employees and/or agents is imputed to The Village Health Care Center.
COUNT I -WRONGFUL DEATH
15. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs one through fourteen above.
16. Defendant, The Village Health Care Center, had a duty to provide medical treatment and attend to the day to day needs of Ms. Mary Ruddle.
17. The Village Health Care Center breached it's duty to Ms. Ruddle by failing to provide adequate medical care in the form of failing to timely recognize, diagnosed, treat, care for or refer Ms. Ruddle to appropriate medical care regarding her C. diff condition.
18. The Village Health Care Center's breaches listed in paragraph 17 above caused Ms. Ruddle to develop and/or exacerbate her health in such a way to place her life in danger. Those breaches ultimately caused Ms. Ruddie's death. Wherefore, Plaintiff claims damages for the physical and mental [ain and suffering of Mary Ruddle, Medical expenses, her death, burial expenses, loss od relationship and companionship for Ms. Ruddle' s heirs as well as their grief and any other relief to which they are entitled.
COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS TO THE VILLAGE HEALTH CARE CENTER
19. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs one through eighteen above.
20. The Village Health Care Center acted in reckless disregard of Ms. Ruddle's rights and was aware or did not care that there was a substantial and unnecessary risk that their conduct would cause serious injury to Ms. Mary Ruddle.
21. The Village Health Care Center allowed Ms. Ruddle to develop advanced C. diff.
22. As result of those reckless acts Ms. Mary Ruddle died.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff claims punitive damages against Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, and any other relief to which she is entitled
Attorney Affidavit
23. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §19, counsel for Plaintiff hereby attaches the required affidavit stating that he has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the Plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that a reasonable interpretation of the facts supports a finding that the acts and omissions of the Defendants, against whom the action is brought, constituted professional negligence and concludes that the claim is meritorious and based on good cause.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: