Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Charles Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., et al.
Date: 06-05-2024
Case Number: 4:22-cv-00314
Judge: Claire V. Eagan
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Donald M. Bingham and Rex Wade Thompson
Defendant's Attorney:
Tulsa, Oklahoma employment law lawyers Donald M. Bingham and Rex Wade Thompson represented the Plaintiff who sued on a civil rights employment discrimination theory.
The following facts are taken from the amended complaint: plaintiff is a perfusionist (Dkt. # 8, at 3), which is a "licensed medical professional who is a member of a cardiovascular surgical team." Dkt. # 8, at 2. Perfusionists "operate[ ] . . . heart-lung machine[s], and during surgery maintain[ ] blood flow to the patient's tissues and regulate[ ] levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood." Id. Defendant CPS hired plaintiff as a perfusionist in 2017, where we worked until he was terminated on May 3, 2021. Id. at 3, 4. Defendants Esau and McKeon are perfusionists who own CPS. Id. at 3.
On March 27, 2021, plaintiff lost consciousness while driving, due to a sudden onset of hypotension. Id. at 3. Emergency medical personnel responded to the scene and performed emergency care, which included intubating plaintiff, and then transported plaintiff to Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa. Id. at 3. The intubation caused "profound damage to [plaintiff's] throat," which "necessitated treatment in ICU from March 27, 2021, until May 3, 2021, followed by in-patient rehabilitation at an . . . [LTAC] until June 11, 2021, when he was discharged." Id. Due to the necessary treatment of his damaged throat, plaintiff could breathe only with the assistance of a ventilator attached to a tracheostomy cannula for most of his stay in the ICU. Id. at 3. While in the ICU, plaintiff also used a Foley catheter and had a gastric feeding tube, and his kidneys became compromised for which he underwent dialysis for approximately six weeks. Id. Plaintiff was "heavily sedated and slept up to twenty [ ] hours each day." Id. Because of the "condition of his throat, kidneys, and other organs, [plaintiff] could not speak, eat . . . , or care for himself. Id.
Defendants Esau and McKeon "observed plaintiff in [the] ICU," spoke with plaintiff's wife, Nicole Pardini, and "formed certain opinions about his condition." Id. at 4. On May 3, 2021, defendants Esau and McKeon informed Pardini by telephone that plaintiff was being terminated due to CPS's financial condition. Id. at 4. "When [CPS] made the decision to discharge Cline, the expected duration of the impairments was more than six (6) months." Id. at 7. Pardini asked the defendants "whether they would agree to hold [plaintiff's] job open until he recovered," but defendants Esau and McKeon declined her request. Id. at 4. Plaintiff "was the only employee who was terminated by [CPS] in 2021." Id. at 5. When CPS decided to terminate plaintiff, it "had recently hired or was in the process of hiring two (2) individuals as perfusionists, each of whom was far younger . . . and . . . far less qualified and far less experienced than [plaintiff.]" Id. at 11. One or both of these new hires replaced plaintiff at CPS. Id.
That same day, May 3, 2021, plaintiff was transferred to LTAC where he "received rehabilitation services and continued dialysis." Id. at 5. While at LTAC, plaintiff continued to receive extensive services and was "unable to work or care for himself." Id. at 5. Plaintiff was discharged from LTAC on June 11, 2021, but continued to use his "tracheostomy cannula, his gastric tube, and his catheter" "for a few weeks." Id. at 5. On July 28, 2021, plaintiff's physician "released [plaintiff] to return to work as a perfusionist on a full-time basis without restriction." Id. at 5. "Shortly after" being released to work, plaintiff asked defendant McKeon for reinstatement and "even offered to work at a lesser position," but plaintiff's request was denied. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff subsequently obtained employment as a perfusionist in California. Id. at 5. Despite ongoing difficulty and pain when speaking or swallowing, plaintiff "is able to work full-time as a perfusionist." Id. at 5-6.
The following facts are taken from the amended complaint: plaintiff is a perfusionist (Dkt. # 8, at 3), which is a "licensed medical professional who is a member of a cardiovascular surgical team." Dkt. # 8, at 2. Perfusionists "operate[ ] . . . heart-lung machine[s], and during surgery maintain[ ] blood flow to the patient's tissues and regulate[ ] levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood." Id. Defendant CPS hired plaintiff as a perfusionist in 2017, where we worked until he was terminated on May 3, 2021. Id. at 3, 4. Defendants Esau and McKeon are perfusionists who own CPS. Id. at 3.
On March 27, 2021, plaintiff lost consciousness while driving, due to a sudden onset of hypotension. Id. at 3. Emergency medical personnel responded to the scene and performed emergency care, which included intubating plaintiff, and then transported plaintiff to Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa. Id. at 3. The intubation caused "profound damage to [plaintiff's] throat," which "necessitated treatment in ICU from March 27, 2021, until May 3, 2021, followed by in-patient rehabilitation at an . . . [LTAC] until June 11, 2021, when he was discharged." Id. Due to the necessary treatment of his damaged throat, plaintiff could breathe only with the assistance of a ventilator attached to a tracheostomy cannula for most of his stay in the ICU. Id. at 3. While in the ICU, plaintiff also used a Foley catheter and had a gastric feeding tube, and his kidneys became compromised for which he underwent dialysis for approximately six weeks. Id. Plaintiff was "heavily sedated and slept up to twenty [ ] hours each day." Id. Because of the "condition of his throat, kidneys, and other organs, [plaintiff] could not speak, eat . . . , or care for himself. Id.
Defendants Esau and McKeon "observed plaintiff in [the] ICU," spoke with plaintiff's wife, Nicole Pardini, and "formed certain opinions about his condition." Id. at 4. On May 3, 2021, defendants Esau and McKeon informed Pardini by telephone that plaintiff was being terminated due to CPS's financial condition. Id. at 4. "When [CPS] made the decision to discharge Cline, the expected duration of the impairments was more than six (6) months." Id. at 7. Pardini asked the defendants "whether they would agree to hold [plaintiff's] job open until he recovered," but defendants Esau and McKeon declined her request. Id. at 4. Plaintiff "was the only employee who was terminated by [CPS] in 2021." Id. at 5. When CPS decided to terminate plaintiff, it "had recently hired or was in the process of hiring two (2) individuals as perfusionists, each of whom was far younger . . . and . . . far less qualified and far less experienced than [plaintiff.]" Id. at 11. One or both of these new hires replaced plaintiff at CPS. Id.
That same day, May 3, 2021, plaintiff was transferred to LTAC where he "received rehabilitation services and continued dialysis." Id. at 5. While at LTAC, plaintiff continued to receive extensive services and was "unable to work or care for himself." Id. at 5. Plaintiff was discharged from LTAC on June 11, 2021, but continued to use his "tracheostomy cannula, his gastric tube, and his catheter" "for a few weeks." Id. at 5. On July 28, 2021, plaintiff's physician "released [plaintiff] to return to work as a perfusionist on a full-time basis without restriction." Id. at 5. "Shortly after" being released to work, plaintiff asked defendant McKeon for reinstatement and "even offered to work at a lesser position," but plaintiff's request was denied. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff subsequently obtained employment as a perfusionist in California. Id. at 5. Despite ongoing difficulty and pain when speaking or swallowing, plaintiff "is able to work full-time as a perfusionist." Id. at 5-6.
06/05/2024 37 JUDGMENT by Judge Claire V Eagan (JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL) - Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the OADA is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff's remaining were previously dismissed with prejudice, and this is a final order terminating this case. Dkt. # 21., dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) (Re: 36 Order,,,,, ) (RGG, Chambers) Modified on 6/5/2024 to add additional text ("Judgment of Dismissal") (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/05/2024)
06/05/2024 ***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 37 ) (sna, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2024)
About This Case
What was the outcome of Charles Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., et al.?
The outcome was: 06/05/2024 36 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the OADA is dismissed without prejudice. There are no other claims remaining for adjudication, and a separate judgment is entered herewith. (Re: 30 Decision from Circuit Court, 34 Report, 33 Order,,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,, Adding/Terminating Party(ies),,,,,,,, Staying Case,,,, Ruling on Motion to Stay,,, 35 Errata/Correction to Document, 8 Amended Complaint, 29 Decision from Circuit Court, 21 Opinion and Order,,,, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, 31 Mandate from Circuit Court ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 06/05/2024) 06/05/2024 37 JUDGMENT by Judge Claire V Eagan (JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL) - Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the OADA is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff's remaining were previously dismissed with prejudice, and this is a final order terminating this case. Dkt. # 21., dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) (Re: 36 Order,,,,, ) (RGG, Chambers) Modified on 6/5/2024 to add additional text ("Judgment of Dismissal") (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/05/2024) 06/05/2024 ***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 37 ) (sna, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2024)
Which court heard Charles Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., et al.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County), OK. The presiding judge was Claire V. Eagan.
Who were the attorneys in Charles Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Donald M. Bingham and Rex Wade Thompson.
When was Charles Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., et al. decided?
This case was decided on June 5, 2024.