M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-07-2013

Case Style: Joan L. Lopez v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Case Number: CJ-2011-5390

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Steven T. Horton, Brent L. Neighbors and Michael Brooks-Jimenez

Defendant's Attorney: Rod L. Cook and Sean Denton of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

C. William Threlkeld, C. Todd Ward and Sterling E. Pratt, Larry D. Ottaway and Andrew M. Bowman for Keith - MFP Five OK 6, LLC

Description: Joan L. Lopez, as Guardian Ad Litem of Omar Fernanfez, a minor, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and Keith - MFP Five OK 6, LLC d/b/a Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park on premises liability theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff Patricia Fennell is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Patricia Fennell is petitioning this Court to be appointed Guardian Ad Litem of minor child Omar Fernandez.

2. Defendant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma with its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company does business in the State of Oklahoma under the trade name “OG&E Electric Services.”

3. Defendant Keith — MHP Five OK 6, LLC is a limited liability corporation doing business in Oklahoma and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Keith — MHP Five OK 6, LLC owns, operates and manages Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

4. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

5. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter, and venue is proper in this Court.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about March 21, 2011, Omar Fernandez, a 2-year-old minor child, was severely injured by an electrical transformer owned, operated and maintained by Defendant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. Said transformer is physically located at 8909 Donley Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, within Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park.

7. Pursuant to OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 165:35-25-3 (2002), Defendant Oklahoma Gas and Electric is required to install, maintain, and operate transformers in accordance with good practice as defined by the National Electric Safety Code.

8. Upon information and belie Defendant Oklahoma Gas arid Electric Company failed to maintain, inspect and operate said electrical transformer in accordance with reasonable and accepted standards causing injury to Plaintiff, Omar Fernandez, a minor child.

9. Defendant Keith — MHP Five OK 6, LLC owns and maintains Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park and has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its properties.

10. Defendant Keith — MHP Five OK 6, LLC knew or should have known that said electrical transformer was not properly secured and/or maintained and failed to act on a remedy.

11. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Omar Fernandez, a minor child, suffered severe and permanent injuries.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Paragraphs 1-11 are incorporated herein.

12. Defendant Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (“OG&E”) has a duty to exercise reasonable care to operate, maintain, repair and monitor OG&E’ s systems in a safe condition and manner to avoid harm to the public, including Omar Fernandez.

13. OG&E failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to operate, maintain, repair and monitor OG&E’ s systems in a safe condition, as described herein.

14, As a direct and proximate result of OG&E’s negligence, gross negligence and reckless conduct, as described herein, Omar Fernandez suffered severe personal injuries.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST KEITH - MHP FIVE OK 6, LLC

Paragraphs 1-14 are incorporated herein.

15. Keith — MFIP Five OK 6, LLC has a duty exercise reasonable care to conduct maintenance, inspections and repairs to the premises in a safe manner to avoid harm to the public, including Omar Fernandez.

16. Keith— MHP Five OK 6, LLC failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to properly inspect, maintain, repair and monitor their premises in a safe condition, as described herein.

17. As a direct and proximate result of Keith — MHP Five OK 6, LLC’s negligence, gross negligence and reckless conduct, as described herein, Omar Fernandez suffered severe personal injuries.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Paragraphs 1-17 are incorporated herein.

18. OG&E has an obligation to comply with the rules and procedures set forth in OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 165:35-1-1 et seq. Defendant OG&E failed to comply with the rules and procedures set forth in OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 165:35-1-1 et seq.

19. By failing to comply with the rules and procedures, OG&E violated OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 165:35-1-1 et seq.

20. Omar Fernandez is among the class of persons intended to be benefited and protected by cited provisions of the Oklahoma Administrative Code.

21. As a direct and proximate result of OG&E’s violation of OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 165:35-1-1 et seq., Omar Fernandez suffered severe personal injuries.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION RES IPSA LOQIUTUR AGAINST DEFENDANTS

Paragraphs 1-21 are incorporated herein.

22. Omar Fernandez’s injuries were caused by OG&E’s energized, open electrical transformer suddenly and without warning electrocuting Omar Fernandez.

23. The energized, open electrical transformer was under the exclusive control and management of the Defendants.

24. The incident that severely injured Omar Fernandez is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing, and for all claims asserted herein, Plaintiffs pray that this Court award judgment against all Defendants and award Plaintiffs:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 to be determined at trial;

b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. Pre and Post-judgment interest as may be permitted by law;

d. Attorneys fees and costs as may be permitted by law; and

e. Any other relief that is just and appropriate under the law.

Defendant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

2. Defendant OG&E admits that it is an Oklahoma corporation, that it does business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and that “OG&E Electric Services” is a trade name used by Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. Defendant OG&E denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

3. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

4. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form abeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

5. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form abeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Defendant OG&E admits that it owned, operated and maintained an electrical transformer at or near the subject property on March 21, 2011. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

7. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition asserts a statement of law and does not contain a factual allegation. Therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition makes factual allegations, Defendant OG&E denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

8. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

9. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

10. The allegations in paragraph 10 of the Plaintiffs’ petition are not directed against OG&E, and as such doe not require a response.

11. Defendant OG&E denies all allegations asserted against OG&E contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proofthereof As to the remaining allegations ofparagraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, OG&E is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and demands strict proof thereof:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

2. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition asserts a statement of law and does not contain a factual allegation.

Therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition makes factual allegations, Defendant OG&E denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

13. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof

14. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE AGAINST KEITH - MHP FIVE OK 6. LLC

15. The allegations in paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Amended Petition are not directed against OG&E, and as such do not require a response.

16. The allegations in paragraph 16 of the Plaintiffs Amended Petition are not directed against OG&E, and as such do not require a response.

17. The allegations in paragraph 17 of the Plaintiffs Amended Petition are not directed against OG&E, and as such do not require a response.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST OKLAHOMA

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

18. The first sentence of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition asserts a statement of law and does not contain a factual allegation. Therefore, no response is necessary. To the extent that the first sentence of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition makes factual allegations, Defendant OG&E denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 18 of of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

19. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

20. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

21. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

RES IPSA LOOUITUR AGAINST DEFENDANTS

22. Defendant OG&E is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

23. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

24. Defendant OG&E denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of of Plaintiffs’

Petition, and demands strict proof thereof All other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition are denied unless specifically admitted above.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

I. Defendant OG&E denies every material allegations of Plaintiffs’ Pctition not specifically admitted herein.

2. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. Defendant OG&E contends that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages, if any.

4. Defendant OG&E denies that Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged as alleged.

5. Defendant OG&E alleges that if Plaintiff was injured or damaged as alleged by Plaintiff in this Petition, which injuries and/or damages are not admitted but are expressly denied, this Defendant was without fault as the accident, injuries and damages, if any, were due solely and proximately caused by the negligence of Plaintiff or contributed to by the negligence of Plaintiff.

6. Defendant OG&E alleges that if Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged as alleged, which injuries and/or damages are not admitted, but are herein expressly denied, the accident and/or injuries, if any, were caused or contributed to by reason of the negligence of Plaintiff, Defendant KEITH — MHP FIVE OK 6, and/or third parties, over whom this Defendant had not control.

7. The accident’incident in question was unavoidable and occurred without the negligence of Defendant OG&E.

8. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm by virtue of his own actions and conduct at the time of the accident.

9. Defendant OG&E may be entitled to equitable indenmity from one or more parties in this case.

10. Plaintiff has failed to join parties necessary to this action under 12 O.S. § 2019.

11. OG&E asserts any damages sustained by Plaintiffs were caused in whole or in part by an intervening or superseding cause.

12. Defendant OG&E reserves the right to add any additional affirmative defenses that become known during discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant OG&E prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition and that this Court grant Defendant OG&E all relief this Court deems just and proper; or, in the alternative, allocate such relief from OG&E to the other parties or third parties according to the appropriate indemnity, contribution, and/or several liability arising out of such parties’ contributory negligence.

Defendant Keith-MPH Five OK 6, LLC appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

2. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

3. Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is admitted.

4. Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is admitted.

5. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is admitted.

6. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

7. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

8. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

9. Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

10. Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition is denied.

11. Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is denied.

12. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

13. Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

14. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

15. Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

16. Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is denied.

17. Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is denied.

18. Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

19. Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

20. Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

21. Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is a legal conclusion which requires no response.

22. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

23. Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition is denied. Thetransformerwas not under the control or management of this Defendant.

24. Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition is denied.

25. Defendant denies all allegations not otherwise addressed above.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against Defendant for which relief can be granted.

2. Defendant denies it owed a duty to Plaintiff.

3. Defendant denies it was negligent in any manner.

4. Defendant’s acts or omissions were not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

5. Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by superceding and intervening acts and/or negligence of other parties overwhom Defendant had no control and for whose actions Defendant cannot be liable.

6. Plaintiff was negligent and such negligence caused and/or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries, damages and/or claims, and must be compared to the negligence, if any, of all other parties and non-parties involved, and Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, must be reduced accordingly.

7. Defendant did not own, manage, maintenance, or operate the transformer in question and therefore cannot be held liable or responsible forthe acts and/or omissions of the party or parties who did own, manage, maintenance, or operate the transformer.

8. Any award of punitive damages based upon any standard of proof that is less than “clear and convincing” evidence would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

9. Any award of punitive damages based upon vague and undefined standards of liability would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

10. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are in contravention of Defendant’s rights under each of the following constitutional provisions:

a. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;

b. The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution;

c. The prohibition against ex post facto laws embodied in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution;

d. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution;

e. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

f. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

g. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

h. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

I. The Right to Trial by Jury contained in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution; and

j. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; as well as the corresponding provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution.

11. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is improper for the following reasons:

a. there are no standards provided by Oklahoma law for the imposition of punitive damages, and, therefore, Defendant has not been put on notice and given the opportunity to anticipate punitive liability and/or the potential size of the award;

b. the procedures to be followed could permit the award of multiple punitive damages for the same act or omission;

c. the procedures under which punitive damages are awarded and the instructions used under Oklahoma law, jointly and separately, are vague and ambiguous and, thus, fail to eliminate the effects of, and to guard against, impermissible jury passion;

d. present Oklahoma law does not provide for sufficiently objective and specific standards to be used by the jury in its deliberations on whether to award punitive damages and, if so, on the amount to be awarded;

e. present Oklahoma law does not provide for a meaningful opportunity for challenging the rational basis for, and the excessiveness of, any award of punitive damages;

f. present Oklahoma procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined;

g. present Oklahoma procedures permit the imposition of joint and several judgments against multiple co-defendants for different acts or degrees of wrong doing or culpability;

h. present Oklahoma procedures fail to permit the reduction of any award for punitive damages based on the culpability of the Third Party Plaintiff.

12. Defendant incorporates by reference, and adopts, as if fully set forth herein, any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damages awards set forth in State Farm MutualAutomobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003), and BMWof North America v. Gore, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996).

13. Defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as discovery continues.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Keith-M PH Five OK 6 d/b/a LakeviewTerrace Mobile Home Park, prays Plaintiff take nothing from the Amended Petition, that judgment be entered for and on behalf of Keith-MPH Five OK 6 d/b/a Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park and for such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: AMENDED ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF MINOR’S FUNDS

This case comes on for consideration this 17th day of December, 2012, for review and approval of the settlement agreement reached between the parties. After reviewing the file materials, hearing testimony of witnesses, being advised of the settlement agreement between the parties and being fully advised in the premises, the court finds as follows:

1. Joan L. Lopez is the Guardian Ad Litem of Omar Fernandez, a minor child, and thus is an appropriate party to have brought claims on behalf of the minor.

2. Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda and the natural parents of Omar Fernandez.

3. On March 21, 2011, the minor plaintiff, Omar Fernandez, suffered injuries and burns from an open electrical transformer. Omar was 2 years old at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. Therefore, this court presents a proper venue for this action.

4. Because a large portion of the settlement pertains to the claims of the minor plaintiff, Omar Fernandez, it is necessary for the court to examine, review and approve the minor’s settlement. 12 0.S. § 83.

5. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda believe that the settlement agreement should be approved and that it is in the best interest of Omar Fernandez, a minor.

6. Although the defendants, Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Keith Mountain, LLC, Peter and Mary Jane, LLC, Oklahoma 6, LLC, Scottsdale Survivors, LLC, d/b/a Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park continue to deny any liability to the plaintiff, the parties have agreed to a settlement a confidential settlement.

7. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda are aware that they did not have to bring the claims on behalf of Omar Fernandez at this time. They have voluntarily chosen to bring the claims at this time and understand that by the court approving the settlement agreement, Omar Fernandez’s claims will be concluded for all time and he will not be allowed to pursue the claims on his own behalf when he reaches of age of majority. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda are also aware that they do not have to settle these claims, that they had an absolute right to present them for a jury for determination. Nevertheless, Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda believe that the settlement agreement is fair and in the best interests of Omar Fernandez and they request this court to approve the settlement on behalf of Omar Fernandez, a minor.

7. The court has the authority to approve a structured settlement pursuant to 12 O.S. § 83. The court also has the power to authorize use of settlement monies for the benefit of the minor child. Id.

8. Upon full consideration of the premises, the court finds that approval of the settlement agreement as entered into by the parties and set forth above is in the best interest of the minor, Omar Fernandez.

9. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda are aware that the future is uncertain as to the medical condition of Omar Fernandez. In entering into this settlement agreement with the defendants, Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda rely upon their own judgment, advice of counsel and their understanding of Omar’s condition. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda understand that even if Omar’s condition should become worse than expected, they may never pursue any additional claims against the defendants after this court approves the settlement agreement between the parties. Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda are of legal age and appear to be of sound mind and clear thinking. The court also finds that Joan L. Lopez, Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda are not under any threat, coercion or economic duress at the time they entered into this settlement agreement.

10. Inasmuch as the case is settled, this case should be dismissed with prejudice to future filings and the claims of Omar Fernandez, a minor, and any claims of Jose Antonio Fernandez and Lizbeth Castaneda, individually, are released and no future claims may hereafter be brought against these defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the settlement agreement entered into by the parties is hereby approved by the court on behalf of the minor, Omar Fernandez. The defendants, Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Keith Mountain, LLC, Peter and Mary Jane, LLC, Oklahoma 6, EEC, Scottsdale Survivors, EEC, d/b/a Lakeview Terrace Mobile Home Park and/or their insurers shall make an immediate cash payment to be paid directly to the attorneys for reasonable costs incurred in prosecuting the claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that payment be paid by the Defendants to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority in satisfaction of the lien for Medicaid benefits paid to Omar Fernandez.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the net settlement proceeds be distributed to the Omar Fernandez by way of a structured settlement calling for future periodic payments to be made to the Omar Fernandez. The Annuity shall be for the sole benefit of Omar Fernandez. Omar Fernandez or his legal representatives shall not have the right or be able to change the recipient or beneficiary of the annuity or other incidents of ownership thereof.

THE COURT FURTHER APPROVES the settlement agreement insofar as it allows for the defendants and/or their insurers to purchase an annuity and a qualified assignment of the future liability and payments be made to Omar Fernandez.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that none of the payments made or to be made, as set forth above, are nor should they be considered for anything other than payments for physical injuries and physical illnesses. No payments are being made for punitive damages.

HAVING REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between the parties, including the settlement of the claims of the minor, Omar Fernandez, the court finds and orders that this case is over and the plaintiffs claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice to future filings thereon against these defendants.

The parties are hereby authorized to execute releases, stipulations for dismissal and other documents and contract necessary to bring about and affect the settlement as approved herein.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.