Date: 01-07-2013

Case Style: Leslie Benson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2010-5631

Judge: Patricia G. Parrish

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: D. Jerry Fraley

Defendant's Attorney: Kyle N. Sweet and Gregg J. Lytle

Description: Leslie Benson sued Mercy Health Center, Inc. on a medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory claiming:

1. On or about July 14, 2008, Plaintiffs left clavicle was fractured while he was an admitted patient at the Defendant’s facility. Said fracture was directly caused by the negligence of said facility by and through its employees or persons acting at its direction.

2. As the direct result of the fracture, negligently caused by the Defendant facility’s employees or persons acting at its direction, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses and was further damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the Defendant in an amount in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) together with costs, attorney fees, interest and any other relief that this Court might deem to be just and proper.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

I.

Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Plaintiffs Amended Petition, except such allegations as are hereinafter specifically admitted.

II.

Defendant admits that Leslie Benson was a patient at Mercy Health Center, Inc. on or about July 14, 2008. Defendant denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 1 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition. Defendant specifically denies that it caused any injury to Plaintiff, was negligent in any maimer, or at any time in his care and treatment.

III.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff has attached a witness affidavit. However, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to state whether the witness’ affidavit is in compliance with 120.S. §19.

Iv.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition. Defendant specifically denies that it caused any injury to Plaintiff, was negligent in any manner, or at any time in his care and treatment.

V.

Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation or prayer for relief contained in the WHEREFORE Paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

VI.

Defendant specifically denies that it was negligent in any manner or at any time in the care and treatment of Plaintiff, Leslie Benson. Defendant states that the care and treatment of Plaintiff was at all times and in every manner proper and within the standard of care applicable to Defendant.

VII.

Defendant specifically denies that any act or omission on its part in the care and treatment of Plaintiff, Leslie Benson, was the proximate cause of any injury to Plaintiff.

VIII.

Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff sustained any injury or suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on its part.

IX.

Discovery being incomplete, Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend its Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Petition in any particular or to add any affirmative defense as more information becomes available through the discovery process.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For Affirmative Defenses, Defendant, Mercy Health Center, Inc., alleges and states as follows:

I.

The Amended Petition of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against this Defendant on any ground upon which relief can be granted.

II.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were caused by the voluntary assumption of the risk by Plaintiff

Ill.

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused or contributed to by the acts, conduct or negligence of Plaintiff

IV.

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by the acts or negligence of a person or persons other than Defendant, over whom Defendant exercised no control or supervision and with whom the Defendant had no legal relationship, and for whose acts Defendant is not responsible.

V.

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by intervening or supervening causes for which this Defendant is not responsible.

VI.

Defendant asserts any and all defenses, limitations and/or bars to recovery under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, common law or statutory law.

VII.

Lack ofjurisdiction (personal, subject matter and/or venue), if applicable.

VIII.

Insufficiency of process and service of process, if applicable.

IX.

Lack of capacity to be sued, if applicable.

X.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant, Mercy Memorial Health Center, Inc., prays that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of his Amended Petition and that it be dismissed herein with costs.

Outcome: Unanimous defendant's verdict in favor of Mercy Health Center

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: