Date: 01-17-2014

Case Style: Mark E. Southard v. Stone M. Hallquist, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2011-3826

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Oliver S. Howard, John Henry Rule and Cesar Tavares

Defendant's Attorney: Timothy G. Best, Amy Ellen Kempfert and Benjamin D. Reed

Description: Mark E. Southard sued Stone M. Hallquist, M.D. on a medical negligence (medical malpractice) theory.

Plamtiff Mark E Southard (“Mr Southard”) claimed that Defendant Stone M Haliquist, M.D. (“Dr. Haliquist”) committed numerous acts of professional medical negligence in treating Mr. Southard for a kidney stone and follow-on treatment in September through November 2010. Mr. Southard claimed that as a result of Dr. Haliquist’ s negligence, Mr. Southard suffered a puncture to his bladder, unnecessary surgeries, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and the loss of a testicle. Mr. Southard sought damages as compensation for these alleged injuries, in an amount to be determined by the jury.

The pre-trial order provided in part:

* * *

Plaintiff Mark B. Southard (“Mr. Southard”) contends that Defendant Stone M. Haliquist, M.D. (“Dr. Hallquist”)committed professional negligence in treating Mr. Southard for a kidney stone and follow-on treatment in September through November 2010. On September 9, 2010, Dr. Haliquist negligently performed a right ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy to remove a kidney stone from Mr. Southard. During the course of this procedure, Dr. Hallquist punctured Mr. Southard’s bladder, an act of professional negligence. Mr. Southard was unable to urinate for approximately two days following this procedure. On September 11, 2010, Dr. Haliquist performed surgery to repair the puncture in the bladder; this constituted professional negligence because the more conservative and proper treatment would have been to treat the puncture with prolonged Foley catheter drainage rather than open laparotomy and bladder repair. As a result of the foregoing treatment, which required multiple instrumentations and additional time in the hospital, Mr. Southard developed epididymitis and other complications, ultimately requiring further surgeries as follows: (a) on October 20, 2010, to remove a stent and tether; (b) on January 27, 2011, to remove Mr. Southard’ s left testicle (orchiectomy); (c) on February 14, 2011, to repair a hematoma as result of the orchiectomy; and (d) on May 19, 2011, to remove a portion of the stent tether that Dr. Haliquist negligently failed to remove in the procedure on October 20, 2010. If the kidney stone removal on September 9, 2010 and the follow-on treatment on September 11, 2010 had been not been performed negligently, these additional surgeries and the resulting pain, suffering, distress, and costs would have been avoided.

(b) Defendant

Defendant Stone M. Haliquist (“Dr. Haflquist”) denies that he was negligent in his care and treatment of Mr. Southard. Dr. Haliquist performed a right utereoscopy with laser lithotripsy and indwelling stent for removal of kidney stone on September 9, 2010, a procedure Dr. Haliquist had performed on Mr. Southard numerous times in his 25 year treatment history of Plaintiff. Mr. Southard tolerated the procedure well. He was discharged home the same day on pain medications and antibiotics for possible development of infection (i.e. epididymitis) with instructions to call his physician or present back to the St. Francis Emergency department should any difficulties arise. On Saturday morning September 11, 2010, Mr. Southard called Dr. Hallquist at home with complaints of not being able to urinate for 36-hours following the previous procedure. On examination at his office, Dr. Haliquist was concerned that Mr. Southard continued to be in pain following his catheterization of Mr. Southard’s bladder. Dr. Haliquist instructed Mr. Southard to meet him at the St. Francis Hospital emergency room for further workup. CT examination noted free air and leakage of contrast material from Mr. Southard’s bladder though the origin and size of leak was unknown. Due to Mr. Southard’s acute distress, acute renal function, free air in the abdomen and unknown bladder leakage sites, Dr. Hallquist performed an exploratory bladder repair. Mr. Southard tolerated this procedure well and was discharged home to be continued on previous medications and antibiotics. On follow up examinations for several attempts of removal of the indwelling stent for the September 9, 2010 procedure, Dr. Hallquist was unable to do so at his office due to Mr. Soüthard’s inability to tolerate the pain. Additional treatment under general anesthesia on October 20, 2010 was necessary to remove the indwelling stent, a procedure complicated by the tether having retracted up Mr. Southard’s urethra and balled up in the base of the bladder. Again, Mr. Southard tolerated the procedure well. Dr. Haliquist continued to follow Mr. Southard for antibiotic treatment of epididymitis until November 24, 2010 after which Mr. Southard never returned to Dr. Hallquist. Dr. Hallquist denies that Plaintiff’s ensuing orchiectomy and complications thereof had anything to do with his care and treatment of Mr. Southard, a history spanning 25 years.

Plaintiff seeks economic damages of $57,766.44, and compensatory damages as determined by the jury for pain, suffering, and distress. The damages limitation set forth in 23 Okla. Stat. §61.2 does not apply in this case because this action was filed on July 11, 2011, before November 1, 2011. See 23 Okia. Stat. §61.2(I) (“This section shall apply to civil actions filed on or after November 1, 2011). The damages limitation set forth in 63 Okia. Stat. §1-1708.1F does not apply because (a) the care delivered was not within the ambit of subsection (A) and (1,) in any event, the section terminated on November 1, 2010. Plaintiff’s employer/insurer claims a right of subrogation as to all medical bills paid for Plaintiff.

4. Defendant’s Contentions

Defendant Stone M. Haliquist, M.D. states that at all material times he rendered reasonable and appropriate medical care to Plaintiff, commensurate with medical standards.

Defendant Stone M. Haliquist, M.D. denies that he caused any injury to Plaintiff and further states that any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff was an unavoidable causality over which this Defendant had no control.

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

Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by subsequent medical condition for which this Defendant was not responsible.

Plaintiff’s non-economic damages are subject to the limitations of 63 O.S. § 1- 1708. iF. 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1F

Plaintiff is precluded from recovering medical bills that have been paid by a third party and for which the third party does not claim a right of subrogation. In this regard, Defendant reserves the right under 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1D to introduce payment of the medical bills. 63 O.S. § 1-1708 et seq.

Outcome: 01-17-2014 CTFREE - 88100738 Jan 17 2014 4:47:29:550PM - $ 0.00 MORRISSEY, LINDA G: NOW ON THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014, THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA RECONVENES PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT. PRESENT AND PRESIDING: HON. LINDA G. MORRISSEY, DISTRICT JUDGE; GARY WOODSON, COURT REPORTER; BRYAN SCHULER, BAILIFF; KIM O'BRIEN, MINUTE CLERK. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD TO WIT: CASE NUMBER: CJ-2011-3826

MARK E. SOUTHARD, PLAINTIFF VS STONE M. HALLQUIST, MD, DEFENDANT

CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL. BOTH SIDES PRESENT IN OPEN COURT AND ANNOUNCE READY FOR TRIAL. PLAINTIFF PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY OLIVER HOWARD, JOHN RULE, CESAR TAVARES. DEFENDANT PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY TIM BEST, BENJAMIN REED.

THE JURORS ARE CALLED AND SWORN AS TO QUALIFICATIONS. THE JURY IS IMPANELED AND EXAMINED FOR CAUSE. THE JURORS ARE ACCEPTED FOR CAUSE. 2 JURORS EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. 3 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ARE MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF. 3 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT. TWELVE JURORS ARE ACCEPTED AND SWORN TO TRY THE CAUSE.

OPENING STATEMENTS ARE MADE. FIVE (5) WITNESSES SWORN. GARY WOODSON, COURT REPORTER. PLAINTIFF PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. DEFENDANT DEMURS AND DEMURRER IS OVERRULED. DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. BOTH SIDES REST THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED AS TO THE LAW. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. THE ALTERNATE JUROR IS EXCUSED. THE SWEARING OF THE BAILIFF IS WAIVED AND AT 1:45 PM ON JANUARY 17, 2014, THE JURY RETIRES FOR DELIBERATION IN CUSTODY OF THE BAILIFF. AT 4:10 PM, THE JURY RETURNS INTO OPEN COURT WITH THEIR VERDICT, WHICH IS READ IN OPEN COURT, ORDERED RECORDED AND FILED, AND IS, TO WIT: “WE THE JURY IMPANELED AND SWORN IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE DO, UPON OUR OATHS, FIND THE ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, STONE M. HALLQUIST, MD.

12 JURORS CONCURRING, SIGNED FOREPERSON JURY DISCHARGED.

Plaintiff's Experts: Richard Goldfarb, M.D., Houston, Texas; Ruhi Arslanoglu, Ph.D., Cedar Knolls, N.J.

Defendant's Experts: Charles McWilliams, M.D.

Comments: Editor's Comment: Doctors win more than 90% of the cases that are tried to verdict in Tulsa County.