Case Style: Donna S. Lawson v. Marc Rocklin, M.D., Tulsa Colon and Rectal Surgery, Inc.
Case Number: CJ-2011-6635
Judge: Linda G. Morrissey
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mike Barkett, Clark Brewster, Cassie Barkett and Holly Nigh
Defendant's Attorney: Bill Fiasco and Meredith Lindaman for Marc S. Rocklin, M.D. and Tulsa Colon and Rectal Surgery, Inc.
Description: Tulsa, OK - Donna S. Lawson sued Marc S. Rockland, M.D., Tulsa Colon and Rectal Surgery, Inc. and Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:
Plaintiff went to Dr. Rocklin for a routine removal of polyp on her colon. During the surgery Dr. Rocklin recklessly and negligently lacerated Mrs. Lawson's right iliac vein and also her presacral veins. The two iatrogenic injuries caused by Dr. Rocklin caused massive and extensive bleeding. However, Dr. Rocklin breached the standard of care by not handling the massive bleeds in any proper way which permitted Mrs. Lawson to losel 2,000 ML of blood over the course of 4 hours. This is equivalent to over two times her full body volume of blood. The massive blood loss directly caused her to have respiratory arrest, be intubated, become severely infected, required additional surgeries, and a long and painful rehabilitative processs. It has also left her compromised for additional medical complications in the future and she suffers from aftlictions now related to the botched surgery by Dr. Rocklin. Her husband, Mr. Dan Lawson, relied on Mrs. Lawson for his care of his alzheimers disease during the time of her surgery and subsequent long term rehabilitation. Due to her absence, caused by Dr. Rocklin's negligence, Mr. Lawson's health declined dramatically and he subsequently died.
Plaintiff Donna Lawson alleged Dr. Marc Rocklin's care fell below accepted standards during his performance of a hand-assisted low anterior colon resection for removal of a polyp performed at Saint Francis Hospital on July 13, 2011. Defendants deny they were negligent and Dr. Rocklin's care of Ms. Lawson at all times met or exceeded the applicable standard of care.
Plaintiff asserted claims based on medical negligence seeking compensation of the injuries and damages she sustained as a direct result of substandard medical care provided to her while a patient of Dr. Rocklin. She also sought punitive damages and relied, in part, on the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
Defendants denied wrongdoing and claimed that all care provided met the applicable standard of care.
Outcome: 03-28-2016 CTFREE
MORRISSEY, LINDA G; CASE COMES ON FOR JURY TRIAL; PLAINTIFF, DONNA S. LAWSON, APPEARED IN PERSON AND REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL BARKETT AND CLARK BREWSTER; DEFENDANTS, MARC S. ROCKLIN AND DR. SCOTT FENGLER FOR THE TULSA COLON & RECTAL SURGERY INC., APPEARED IN PERSON AND REPRESENTED BY MEREDITH LINDAMAN AND WILLIAM FIASCO; CALEB MCKEE, BAILIFF; GARY WOODSON, COURT REPORTER; DETAILED MINUTE TO BE ENTERED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL;
MORRISSEY, LINDA G; THE PLAINTIFF HAS ORALLY REQUESTED THAT THE COURT RECONSIDER ITS RULING DENYING ITS MOTION IN LIMINE, SEEKING THE EXCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL CONSENT FORM. PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED THE COURT WITH A MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE MEMORANDUM, AS WELL AS DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM. ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF HEARING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANTS' OPENING STATEMENTS, INFORMING THE JURY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS. IN DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE, DEFENDANTS ASSERT THAT THEY “DO NOT INTEND TO USE THE CONSENT FORMS OR THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLAINTIFF AS ANY PROOF THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE.” DEFENDANTS SPECULATE THAT IF THE CONSENT FORM IS EXCLUDED, “JURORS ARE LIKELY TO BELIEVE THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THIS PROCEDURE.” HOWEVER, THE ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT, DR. ROCKLIN, WAS NEGLIGENT AND WHETHER HIS TREATMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF FELL BELOW THE STANDARD OF CARE, NOT ANY ISSUE RELATED TO CONSENT. A CONSENT TO SURGERY IS NOT A WAIVER OF NEGLIGENCE. IT IS A CONSENT TO NORMAL RISKS OF SURGERY. FURTHER, THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR THE PROCEDURE IS NOT RELATED TO INFORMED CONSENT. “RELEVANT EVIDENCE MEANS EVIDENCE HAVING ANY TENDENCY TO MAKE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY FACT THAT IS OF CONSEQUENCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACTION MORE PROBABLE OR LESS PROBABLE THAN IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE.” 12 O.S. § 2401. “EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT IF IT LEGALLY TENDS TO PROVE SOME MATTER IN ISSUE OR TENDS TO MAKE A PROPOSITION IN ISSUE MORE OR LESS PROBABLE.” IVEN V. RODER, 431 P.2D 321 (OKLA. 1967). SINCE THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGES THE CONSENT FORM IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE, THE CONSENT FORM DOES NOT TEND TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY FACT THAT IS OF CONSEQUENCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACTION MORE PROBABLE OR LESS PROBABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT VACATES ITS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND GRANTS THE MOTION; ORDER ENTERED; COPIES DELIVERED TO MICHAEL BARKETT, CLARK BREWSTER, MEREDITH LINDAMAN, WILLIAM FIASCO
Plaintiff's Experts: Dr. Scott Fenter, Spring, Texas; Dr. Jonathan Pritt, Gainesville, FL
Defendant's Experts: Dr. Rodney Clingam, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dr. Scott Fengler, Tulsa, Oklahoma