Date: 01-31-2013

Case Style: William D. Evans v. HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a OU Medical Center

Case Number: CJ-2010-2900

Judge: Patricia G. Parrish

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David W. Van Meter and M. Kevin Walker

Defendant's Attorney: D. Bowen "Bo" Berry and Mary Ann Olson for Albrecht, Roxie Mae M.D., Workman, Meredith M.D. and Prejeant, Kristi M.D.

Description: William D. Evans v. HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a OU Medical Center, Rixie Mae Albrecht, M.D., Kristi Prejeant, M.D. and Meredith Workman, M.D. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

1. On the June 9, 2008, Marilyn Fay Evans presented to OU Medical Center to undergo a colonoscopy and it was discovered she had a mass in her recto-sigmoid colon. She was referred for a surgical consult. Mrs. Evans was admitted to OU Medical Center for surgery on July 23, 2008. Defendants, Dr. Albrecht, Dr. Prejeant and Dr. Workman performed the surgery and encountered difficulty during the operation, including air leakage which required them to redo the anastomosis and misfiring of a surgical stapler which required them to re-fire the stapler. After surgery, Mrs. Evans continued to complain of pain and inflammation at her surgical site. The wound was opened on July 29, 2008 resulting in purulent drainage. She was discharged from the hospital on July 31, 2008. Mrs. Evans was re-evaluated on August 2, 2008, at which time she reported fecal incontinence and it was determined to be fecal discharge from her vagina. She was readmitted to the hospital for further care. On August 12, 2008 she was returned to the operating room for repair of a recto-vaginal fistula. On August 14, 2008 Mrs. Evans suffered cardiac arrest secondary to her wound infection because of the recto-vaginal fistula and died.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter as the acts complained of herein occurred in Oklahoma County.

3. The Defendants were negligent in their care of Marilyn Fay Evans and departed from acceptable medical standards of care by failing to follow appropriate surgical procedures, in failing to properly utilize surgical equipment, in failing to protect certain structures while performing this surgery, in failing to identify certain abdominal structures in failing to render appropriate patient care, in failing to adequately assess the patient in a timely manner, in failing to communicate to a medical physician the patient’s complaints/symptoms and perform diagnostic tests, in failing to provide emergent and timely care, in failing to maintain the health and safety of the patient, and in failing to prepare and record an accurate record.

4. Marilyn Fay Evans was in the exclusive care, custody and control of the Defendants at all relevant times concerning the injuries complained of in this Petition, and the injuries she suffered would not have occurred but for the negligence of the Defendants.

5. At all relevant times, Defendants’ employees were acting within the course and scope of their employment at the time they negligently handled the Plaintiff causing permanent injuries.

6. The Defendants are responsible for the acts and/or omissions of their employees at all relevant times concerning the subject injuries.

7. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligence, Marilyn Fay Evans suffered severe pain, severe infection, more extensive surgery, had permanent injury and disfigurement from internal and external scarring and had incurred medical expenses continuing into the future, and suffered an untimely death; Her surviving heirs have suffered and will suffer grief, loss of companionship and pecuniary losses entitling them to recover damages from these Defendants in excess of Seventy-Five
Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

8. The conduct of the Defendants was callous and wanton in nature showing gross neglect entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in excess of actual damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in excess of $75,000.00 and for punitive damages in excess of actual damages, along with costs, interests, attorney’s fees, and any other relief to which he may be entitled.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant denies Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

2. To the extent that Paragraph 2 of the Petition is a legal conclusion, no response is required. Defendant otherwise denies Paragraph 2.

3. Defendant denies Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

4. Defendant denies Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

5. Defendant denies Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

6. Defendant denies Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

7. Defendant denies Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

8. Defendant denies Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

9. Defendant denies the allegations stated in the WHEREFORE paragraph of the Petition and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any recovery or relief.

10. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in the Petition not expressly
admitted above.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

11. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

12. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant met or exceeded applicable and appropriate standards of care.

13. Defendant exercised the care and attention required under all the circumstances that were appropriate to the physical and mental condition of patient.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent of any comparative or contributory negligence and/or fault of plaintiffs.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or reduced to the extent of any failure by plaintiff to mitigate alleged damages.

16. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages may have been the result of an independent, intervening, or superseding cause.

17. The injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiffs may not be proximately related to the occurrence in question but instead may be the result of injuries and occurrences that occurred prior and/or subsequent to the incident in question.

18. Any alleged action or omission on the part of Defendant was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.

19. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of others for whose conduct Defendant is not responsible, and/or resulted from conditions unrelated to Defendant.

20. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused in whole or in part by the comparative responsibility of others. Plaintiffs’ damages must therefore be reduced
proportionately.

21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because any injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs were the result of pre-existing, idiosyncratic, or subsequent conditions that were unrelated to the incident at issue and/or were not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, and/or were sustained without any negligence, breach, violation, or failure on the part of Defendant.

22. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption or inference of negligence, but must establish each element of the claim by necessary and reliable medical expert testimony.

23. The injuries or damages were the natural, probable, and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of the patient.

24. The injuries or damages were not the result of any acts or omissions by Defendant but were the result of occurrences within the body of patient over which Defendant had no control and for which Defendant was not responsible.

25. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or reduced by the doctrines of sudden emergency or unavoidable consequences.

26. To the extent that an emergency existed and the patient was unconscious or otherwise incapable of determining for herself whether treatment should be administered, a duty to disclose did not arise.

27. The doctrine of informed consent bars Plaintiffs’ claims.

28. To the extent that risks were already known to plaintiffs, or which were commonly understood by the average person to be involved in the proposed treatment or operation, a duty to disclose did not arise.

29. To the extent that the Defendant relied upon facts which would demonstrate that full disclosure of risks would be detrimental to Plaintiffs’ total care and best interest, or where such disclosure would alarm the Plaintiffs so that the Plaintiffs would not be able to weigh rationally the risks of refusing to undergo the recommended treatment or operation, a duty to disclose did not arise.

30. Defendant reserves the right to a set-off, percentage, or pro-rata reduction of her liability, if any, or to a credit for the amount of any settlement paid by each settling person.

31. Defendant is entitled to a credit, setoff, and/or offset for those medical and health care services expenses which Plaintiffs are claiming, to the extent of any governmentally mandated reduction in charges, as a result of Medicare, Medicaid and/or any other federally funded program.

32. Any award of damages shall be reduced the amount of any payments received from collateral sources.

33. To the extent that any bills, or portions of bills, incurred at any healthcare provider are reduced or written off, such amounts should be setoff, offset and/or credited against any claim for past medical care.

34. Plaintiffs failed to plead any item of special damage with the required specificity.

35. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable limitations period.

36. To the extent Plaintiffs seek an award of pro-judgment interest on future damages, this violates the due process clauses of the United States and Oklahoma Constitution.

37. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims are based on a theory that provides for liability without proof of causation, or that shifts the burden of proof to Defendant, the claims violate Defendant’s rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.

38. Defendant invokes all defenses, limitations on damages, caps, and other relief afforded by 63 O.S. 211-1708.1, including but not limited to section F.

39. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the absence of a contract, statute, or law authorizing such fees.

40. Defendant is not liable for any actions of any other party.

41. Defendant denies, to the extent the actions may have occurred, that any entity or person engaging in the activities alleged was acting as the agent or servant of Defendant, or at the instruction or subject to the control of Defendant with regard to any of the actions described in the petition; thus, Defendant is not liable for any acts or omissions of such parties as a matter of law

42. To the extent that Defendant’s alleged acts or omissions fall within the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, Defendant asserts immunity and/or limitation of liability provided by the Act.

43. To the extent that Defendant’s alleged acts or omissions fall within the Government Tort Claims Act, Plaintiffs have failed to give notice of the alleged claims prior to filing suit as required by the Act.

44. To the extent that Defendant’s alleged acts or omissions fall within Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, the amount of damages that Plaintiffs recover, if any, is limited to the statutory cap provided in the Act.

45. Any claim for punitive damages is barred or limited pursuant to applicable statute.

46. Because of the lack of clear standards, any imposition of punitive damages against Defendant is unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad.

47. No act or omission of Defendant was malicious, willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent or intentional and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is barred.

48. Any claim for punitive damages is in contravention of Defendant’s rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution; the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and the correlative provisions of the Oklahoma
Constitution, including any:

(a) imposition of punitive damages by a jury which:

(1) is not provided with standards of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, and the appropriate size, of a punitive damages award;

(2) is not adequately and clearly instructed on the limits on punitive damages imposed by the principles of deterrence
and punishment;

(3) is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining the amount of an award thereof, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status, wealth, or state of residence of Defendant;

(4) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for determining liability for such damages which is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which makes punitive damages permissible; and

(5) is not subject to trial court and appellate judicial review for reasonableness and the furtherance of legitimate purposes on the basis of objective standards;

(b) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, where applicable law is impermissibly vague, imprecise, or inconsistent;

(c) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, without bifurcating the trial and trying all punitive damages issues only if and after the liability of defendant has been found on the merits;

(d) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, based on anything other than Defendant’s conduct in connection with the sale of the product alleged in this litigation, or in any other way subjecting Defendant to impermissible multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong.

49. Any award of actual or punitive damages is limited by the applicable statutory cap.

50. Defendant is not liable in the capacity in which she is sued.

51. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this Answer and affirmative defenses with additional defenses that become available or apparent during the course of investigation, preparation, or discovery and to amend her Answer accordingly.

JURY DEMAND

52. Defendant demands a jury trial.

WHEREFORE, Kristi Prejeant, M.D. prays for relief and judgment against plaintiffs as follows:

A. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Petition;

B. That this action be dismissed with prejudice;

C. That Defendant recovers her fees and costs incurred herein; and

D. Such further and other relief as the Court deems proper.

Defendant OU Medical Center appeared and answered as follows:

All allegations not specifically admitted herein, shall be deemed to be denied.

1. Defendant OUMC is currently without sufficient information to admit or deny the Plaintiffs allegations in Paragraph I and they are therefore denied.

2. Paragraph 2 is admitted.

3. The allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff’s Petition are denied and Defendant OUMC demands strict proof thereof

4. Paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff’s Petition is denied and Defendant OUMC demands strict proof thereof

5. Defendant OUNC admits that its employees were action within the course and scope of their employment in caring for Marilyn Evans. The remainder of Paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s Petition is denied.

6. Defendant OUMC denies that its employees committed any acts or omissions that led to injury to Marilyn Evans.

7. Defendant OUMC denies the allegations in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Plaintiff’s Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.

1. OUMC and/or its agents, servants andlor employees at all times met or exceeded all applicable and appropriate standards of care.

2. The Plaintiff fails to state a claim against OUMC upon which relief may be granted..

3. The Plaintiff fails to set forth a legal duty owed by OUMC which was likewise breached by this Defendant.

4. OUMC specifically denies the damages alleged by the Plaintiff and demands strict proof thereof.

5. The proximate cause of Ms. Evans’ death and Plaintiffs alleged damages. were caused by an entity or entities or third party or third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

6. OUMC denies that any of its agents, servants and/or employees were negligent, and contends that they, at all times, provided good medical care and treatment commensurate with the applicable and appropriate standards of medical care.

7. The proximate cause of Ms. Evans’ death and Plaintiff’s alleged damages was caused by a pre-existing condition, anatomic anonuly or inherent physiological problem in the physical constitution of the Plaintiff over which this
Defendant had no control.

8. The events over which Plaintiff complains were a result of an unavoidable casualty and not foreseeable.

9. Should OUMC be found guilty of professional negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, this Defendant states its negligence was not the proximate cause of Ms. Evans’ death and Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
10. OUMC claims all of the limitations on damages and relief afforded wider 63 U.s.
§ 1-1708. ID.
II, UUMC invokes all defenses and relief afforded by the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, including but not limited to 12 U.S. § 19.

12. OUMC reserves the right to amend this Answer and assert additional affirmative defenses up to and until the time of the Pretrial Conference as discovery is not yet complete and all the defenses available to this Defendant may not yet be known.

Defendants Roxie Mae Albrecht, M.D. and Merdith Workman, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendants deny Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

2. To the extent that Paragraph 2 of the Petition is a legal conclusion, no response is required. Defendants otherwise deny Paragraph 2.

3. Defendants deny Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

4. Defendants deny Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

5. Defendants deny Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

6. Defendants deny Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

7. Defendants deny Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

8. Defendants deny Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

9. Defendants deny the allegations stated in the WHEREFORE paragraph of the Petition and further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any recovery or relief.

10. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in the Petition not expressly admitted above.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

11. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

12. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants met or exceeded applicable and appropriate standards of care.

13. Defendants exercised the care and attention required under all the circumstances that were appropriate to the physical and mental condition of patient

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent of any comparative or contributory negligence and/or fault of plaintiffs.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or reduced to the extent of any failure by plaintiff to mitigate alleged damages.

16. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages may have been the result of an independent, intervening, or superseding cause.

17. The injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiffs may not be proximately related to the occurrence in question but instead may be the result of injuries and occurrences that occurred prior and/or subsequent to the incident in question.

18. Any alleged action or omission on the part of Defendants was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.

19. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of others for whose conduct Defendants are not responsible, and/or resulted from conditions unrelated to Defendants.

20. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused in whole or in part by the
comparative responsibility of others. Plaintiffs’ damages must therefore be reduced proportionately.

21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because any injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs were the result of pre-existing, idiosyncratic, or subsequent conditions that were unrelated to the incident at issue and/or were not reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and/or were sustained without any negligence, breach, violation, or failure on the part of Defendants.

22. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption or inference of negligence, but must establish each element of the claim by necessary and reliable medical expert testimony.

23. The injuries or damages were the natural, probable, and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of the patient.

24. The injuries or damages were not the result of any acts or omissions by Defendants but were the result of occurrences within the body of patient over which Defendants had no control and for which Defendants were not responsible.

25. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or reduced by the doctrines of sudden emergency or unavoidable consequences.

26. To the extent that an emergency existed and the patient was unconscious or otherwise incapable of determining for herself whether treatment should be administered, a duty to disclose did not arise.

27. The doctrine of informed consent bars Plaintiffs’ claims.

28. To the extent that risks were already known to plaintiffs, or which were commonly understood by the average person to be involved in the proposed treatment
or operation, a duty to disclose did not arise.

29. To the extent that the Defendants relied upon facts which would demonstrate that full disclosure of risks would be detrimental to Plaintiffs’ total care and best interest, or where such disclosure would alarm the plaintiffs so that the plaintiffs would not be able to weigh rationally the risks of refusing to undergo the recommended treatment or operation, a duty to disclose did not arise.

30. Defendants reserve the right to a set-off, percentage, or pro-rata reduction of its liability, if any, or to a credit for the amount of any settlement paid by each settling person.

31. Defendants are entitled to a credit, setoff, and/or offset for those medical and health care services expenses which Plaintiffs are claiming, to the extent of any governmentally mandated reduction in charges, as a result of Medicare, Medicaid and/or any other federally funded program.

32. Any award of damages shall be reduced the amount of any payments received from collateral sources.

33. To the extent that any bills, or portions of bills, incurred at any healthcare provider are reduced or written off, such amounts should be setoff, offset and/or credited against any claim for past medical care.

34. Plaintiffs failed to plead any item of special damage with the required specificity.

35. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable limitations period.

36. To the extent Plaintiffs seek an award of pre-judgment interest on future damages, this violates the due process clauses of the United States and Oklahoma

Constitution.

37. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims are based on a theory that provides for liability without proof of causation, or that shifts the burden of proof to Defendants, the claims violate Defendants’ rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.

38. Defendants invoke all defenses, limitations on damages, caps, and other relief afforded by 630.S. § 1-1708.1, including but not limited to section F.

39. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the absence of a contract, statute, or law authorizing such fees.

40. Defendants invoke all defenses and relief afforded by the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, including but not limited to 120.S. § 19.

41. Defendants are not liable for any actions of any other party.

42. Defendants deny, to the extent the actions may have occurred, that any entity or person engaging in the activities alleged was acting as the agent or servant of Defendant, or at the instruction or subject to the control of Defendants with regard to any of the actions described in the petition; thus, Defendants are not liable for any acts or omissions of such parties as a matter of law

43. To the extent that Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions fall within the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, Defendants assert immunity and/or limitation of liability provided by the Act.

44. To the extent that Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions fall within the Government Tort Claims Act, Plaintiffs have failed to give notice of the alleged claims prior to filing suit as required by the Act.

45. To the extent that Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions fall within
Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act, the amount of damages that Plaintiffs recover, if any, is limited to the statutory cap provided in the Act.

46. Any claim for punitive damages is barred or limited pursuant to applicable statute.

47. Because of the lack of clear standards, any imposition of punitive damages against Defendant is unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad.

48. No act or omission of Defendants was malicious, willful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent or intentional and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is barred.

49. Any claim for punitive damages is in contravention of Defendant’s rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution; the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and the correlative provisions of the Oklahoma
Constitution, including any:

(a) imposition of punitive damages by a jury which:

(1) is not provided with standards of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, and the appropriate size, of a punitive damages award;

(2) is not adequately and clearly instructed on the limits on punitive damages imposed by the principles of deterrence and punishment;

(3) is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining the amount of an award thereof, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status, wealth, or state of residence of Defendant;

(4) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for determining liability for such damages which is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which makes punitive damages permissible; and (5) is not subject to trial court and appellate judicial review for reasonableness and the furtherance of legitimate purposes on the basis of objective standards;

(b) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, where applicable law is impermissibly vague, imprecise, or inconsistent;

(c) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, without bifurcating the trial and trying all punitive damages issues only if and after the liability of defendants has been found on the merits;

(d) imposition of such punitive damages, and determination of the amount of an award thereof, based on anything other than Defendant’s conduct in connection with the sale of the product alleged in this litigation, or in any other way subjecting Defendant to impermissible multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong.

50. Any award of actual or punitive damages is limited by the applicable statutory cap.

51. Defendants are not liable in the capacity in which they are sued.

52. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this Answer and affirmative defenses with additional defenses that become available or apparent during the course of investigation, preparation, or discovery and to amend their Answer accordingly.

JURY DEMAND

53. Defendants demand a jury trial.

WHEREFORE, Roxie Mae Albrecht M.D. and Meredith Workman, M.D. pray for relief and judgment against plaintiffs as follows:

A. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Petition;

B. That this action be dismissed with prejudice;

C. That Defendants recover their fees and costs incurred herein; and

D. Such further and other relief as the Court deems proper.

Outcome: JUDGE PARRISH:ENT; CASE COMES ON FOR JURY TRIAL. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH COUNSEL DAVID VANMETER AND KEVIN WALKER. BEERY D "Bo" BOWEN AND MARY ANN OLSON REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS. BOTH SIDES ANNOUNCE READY. THIRTY JURORS SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. JUROR JUROR EXCUSED FROM JURY DUTY BY THE JUDGE. TWENTY JURORS CALLED TO THE BOX. VOIR DIRE CONDUCTED. JUROR # 4 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. JUROR #2 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. JUROR # 9 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE . JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. JUROR # 20 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. JUROR # 14 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. JUROR # 16 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT PASS JURY FOR CAUSE. ALL PREMPTORY CHALLENGES CALLED. FOURTEEN JURORS SWORN TO TRY CASE. COURT'S INSTRUCTION # 1 OPENING STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL 1/15/2013 @ 8:30 AM. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.

DAY 2

ENT;JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND READY. JURORS RETURN TO BOX. WITNESSES SWORN , TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINTIFF REST. DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESSES, CROSS EXAMINATION. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL 1/16/2013 @ 8:30 AM. COPURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.

DAY 3

ENT; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND READY. JURORS RETURN TO BOX. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. CROSS EXAMINATION. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL 1/17/2013 @ 8:00 AM. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.

DAY 4

ENT; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND READY. JURORS RETURN TO BOX. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. DEFENDANT REST. DEMURRER OVERRULED. COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. ALTERNATE JURORS EXCUSED. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE AND RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS; IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS. JURY DISCHARGED. CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.

Plaintiff's Experts: Harold V. Gaskill, III, M.D., San Antonio, Texas

Defendant's Experts: Michael D. Korenman, M.D., F.A.C.S.

Comments: