Date: 06-23-2013

Case Style: Ronald Reynolds, Jr. v. Brandon H. Kilgore

Case Number: CJ-2011-9754

Judge: Barbara G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stanley M. Ward, Woodrow K. Glass, Scott F. Brockman, R. Ben Houston and Barrett T. Bowers

Defendant's Attorney: Alexander C. Vosler and Christopher John Boyer for Brandon H. Kilgore and Edmond General Surgery, LLC

Kevin Diskill and Caleb M. Redman for Bryan Ashley Orme, M.D. and Affiliated Anesthesiologists, LLC

Michael J. Heron, Kevin K. Trout and Cody J. Roberson for Mercy Health Center, Inc.

Description: Ronald Reynolds, Jr., as surviving spouse and personal representative of the estate of Rebecca Kathleen Reynolds, deceased and for and on behalf of William Hugh Reynolds, sued Brandon H. Kilgore, Bryan Ashley Orme, M.D., Edmond General Surgery, LLC, Affiliated Anesthesiologists, LLC, and Mercy Hospital on medical negligence theories (medical malpractice) claiming:

1. Plaintiffs Ronald Reynolds, Jr. and William Hugh Reynolds, infant son of the deceased, were and now are residents of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendant Brandon Heath Kilgore, M.D. (Kilgore), is a medical doctor licensed by the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

3. Based upon a reasonable belief, it is believed Defendant Kilgore is associated with and an agent of Edmond General Surgery, L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company.

4. Defendant Bryan Ashley Orme (Orme) is a medical doctor licensed by the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

5. Based upon a reasonable beliet it is believed Defendant Orme is associated with and an agent of Affiliated Anesthesiologists, L.L.C., an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company.

6. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendant Mercy Healtri Center, Inc., (Mercy) was and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business located in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
Jurisdiction and Venue

7. The events, acts and omissions referenced herein occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

8. Venue is properly laid in Oklahoma County and this Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties and cause of action set forth in this Petition.

Fact Allegations

9. On or about March 27, 2010, Rebecca Kathleen Reynolds, deceased, was admitted to Defendant Mercy.

10. Mrs. Reynolds was admitted by and diagnosed with acute cholecystitis by Defendant Kilgore, a general surgeon.

11. On March 28, 2010, Mrs. Reynolds was taken to the operating room by Dr. Kilgore and underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

12. Dr. Orme was responsible for the pre-anesthesia evaluation and the general anesthesia services provided during the surgery on March 28, 2010.

13. During the procedure, Mrs. Reynolds suffered a cardiac arrest directly related to postpartum cardiomyopathy and acute bleeding which caused her to suffer an anoxic brain injury.

14. The brain injury eventually resulted in Mrs. Reynolds death.

15. The medical care and treatment provided by Defendants Kilgore and Orme departed from the accepted standards of medical care.

16. Defendants’ Kilgore and Orme departures from accepted standard of medical care caused Mrs. Reynolds injury and eventually her death.

17. Defendants’ Kilgore and Orme both failed to obtain appropriate and adequate informed consent.

18. Defendant Mercy negligently credentialed Defendants Kilgon and Orme.

19. Defendants Kilgore and Orme, while providing medical care to Mrs. Reynolds, were the ostensible agents of Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc.

20. Plaintiff is entitled to bring this action pursuant to 12 O.S. §1053.

21. Plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from an expert who having reviewed the available, relevant material, opined a reasonable interpretation of the facts supporting a finding that the acts or omissions of Defendant Brandon Heath Kilgore, M D. and Bryan Ashley Orme, M.D. constitute medical negligence.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

(1) For actual damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00, for the loss of spousal relations, loss of parent child relationship, the grief of the surviving husband, the loss of social service, companionship and marriage relationship, the loss of parental care having the guidance and education that would have been forthcoming from Rebecca Reynolds to her child, William Reynolds, the loss of future income provided by the deceased, medical and burial expenses and all other damages in accordance with the proof at the time of trial;

(2) For interest thereon as provided by law, pre-judgment and post- judgment;

(3) For Plaintiffs costs; and,

(4) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendants Edmond General Surgery, LLC appeared and answered as follows:

I.

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

II.

As to Paragraph No.1 Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

III.

As to Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant would state that Dr. Kilgore is a medical doctor
licensed by the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Defendant would also state that it has an employment agreement with Dr. Kilgore. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein.

IV.

As to Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, and 6, if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or denythe allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

V.

As to Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, Defendant states that a patient by the name of Rebecca Reynolds was seen at Mercy Health Center in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on or about March 2010. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein.

VI.

As to Paragraph No.9, the allegations are ambiguous but Defendant would state that on or about March 27, 2010, Rebecca Kathleen Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center.

VII.

As to Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, the allegations are ambiguous but Defendant would state that Dr. Kilgore is a general surgeon and that Mrs. Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center and treated for cholecystitis in March 2010. Defendant generally and specifically denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11.

VIII.

As to Paragraph No. 12 , if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

Ix.

As to ParagraphNos. 13 and 14, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

x.

As to Paragraph Nos. 15, 16, and 17, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein and states the care ofDr. Kilgore at no time departed from the accepted standards ofmedical care and did not cause injury and death of Mrs. Reynolds. Defendant also states that Dr. Kilgore did obtain appropriate and adequate informed consent. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

XI.

As to Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

XII.

As to Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time. Defendant further denies that any act or omission on the part of itself or Dr. Kilgore would constitute medical negligence.

XIII.

As to the Wherefore paragraph and its subsections, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein and prays the court grant no relief to Plaintiffs.

XIV.

Defendant specifically denies that it or Dr. Kilgore was negligent in any manner at any time in the care and treatment of the Plaintiff

XV.

Defendant specifically denies that any act or omission on its or Dr. Kilgore’s part was negligent or the proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiff.

XVI.

Defendant specifically denies that the Plaintiff suffered any damages by reason of any alleged actor omission on its or Dr. Kilgore’s part.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For affirmative defenses, Defendant alleges and states as follows:

XVII.

The Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant on any ground upon which relief can be granted.

XVIII.

Defendant denies that it or Dr. Kilgore was guilty of any type of professional negligence in the care and treatment ofPlaintiff. Additionally, Defendant states that all care given to Plaintiff was at all times reasonable and above the applicable standard of care and did not cause harm.

XIX.

Defendant is under no duty to inform Plaintiff of any risks that are known by everyone or should be known by everyone. Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165, ¶ 16, 606 P.2d 554, 558.

xx.

Defendant is under no duty to report risks involved in a procedure if ff11 disclosure would be detrimental to the patients well-being or if fhll disclosure would necessarily alarm or frighten the patient. Id.

XXI.

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

XXII.

Any care and treatment provided to the Plaintiff was conducted with the informed consent of all necessary parties.

XXIII.

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

XXIV.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were caused by the acts or negligence of a person or persons other than this Defendant, over whom this Defendant exercised no control or supervision.

XXV.

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

XXVI.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable complications due to the underlying conditions of the Plaintiff, for which this Defendant is not responsible.

XXVII.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were caused by a pre-existing or post- developing, unrelated medical condition, disease, illness, or infection of the Plaintiff for which Defendant is not responsible.

XXVIII.

Defendant generally and specifically adopt any and all affirmative defenses available under the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, common law or statutory law (including but not limited to those identified herein and 12 OKLA. STAT. ANN. § 2008, 2009 and 2012).

XXIX.

The Petition of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant for punitive damages, and Defendant therefore requests the Court to strike any future allegations and prayer for punitive damages.

M.

The imposition ofpunitive damages against Defendant would be unconstitutional and would violate the rights ofDefendant under the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

MI.

Any claim by Plaintiff for punitive damages is barred and limited by 23 OS. §91 et seq.

MII.

Any action by the Plaintiff against this Defendant is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

XXXIII.

Failure to join a party.

MX.

Improper party.
XXXV.
Another action pending between the same parties for the same claim(s).
XXXVI.
Lack of capacity to sue and lack of capacity to be sued.
XXX VII.
Laches.
XXXVIII.
Release.
XXXIX.
Waiver.
XL.
Failure to fully complywith all provisions of 63 U.S. 1-1708.1 et seq., the Affordable Access to Health Care Act. Defendant asserts all defenses and rights under said Act.
XLI.
23 0.5. § 61.2 etseq.
XLII.
All applicable defenses in contract, agency, and employment law or under public policy.
WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs take nothing byreason of their Petition and that it be dismissed herein, with expenses, costs and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Brandon H. Kilgore, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:

I.

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

II.

As to Paragraph No.1 Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

III.

As to Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant would state that he is a medical doctor licensed by
the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Defendant would also state that he has an employment agreement with Edmond General Surgery, L.L.C.. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein.

Iv.

As to Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, and 6, if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

V.

As to Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, Defendant states that a patient by the name of Rebecca Reynolds was seen at Mercy Health
Center in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on or about March 2010. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein.

VI.

As to Paragraph No.9, the allegations are ambiguous but Defendant would state that on or about March 27, 2010, Rebecca Kathleen Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center.

VII.

As to Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, the allegations are ambiguous but Defendant would state that he is a general surgeon and that Mrs. Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center and treated for cholecystitis in March2010. Defendant generally and specifically denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Nos 10 and 11.

VIII.

As to Paragraph No. 12 , if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

IX.

As to Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

X.

As to Paragraph Nos. 15, 16, and 17, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein and states that his care at no time departed from the accepted standards of medical care and did not cause injury and death of Mrs. Reynolds. Defendant also states that he did obtain appropriate and adequate informed consent. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time.

XI.

As to Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, if the allegations are directed at this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, therefore these allegations are denied at this time.

XII.

As to Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained; therefore, those allegations are denied at this time. Defendant further denies that any act or omission on the part of himself would constitute medical negligence.

XIII.

As to the Wherefore paragraph and its subsections, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein and prays the court grant no relief to Plaintiffs.

XIV.

Defendant specifically denies that he was negligent in any manner at any time in the care and treatment of the Plaintiff.

XV.

Defendant specifically denies that any act or omission on his part was negligent or the proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiff.

XV.

Defendant specifically denies that the Plaintiff suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on his part.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For affirmative defenses, Defendant alleges and states as follows:

XVII.

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

XVIII.

Defendant denies that it is guilty of any type of professional negligence in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Additionally, Defendant states that all care given to Plaintiff was at all times reasonable and above the applicable standard of care and did not cause harm.

XIX.

Defendant is under no duty to inform Plaintiff of any risks that are known by everyone or should be known by everyone. Scottv. Bradford, 19790K 165, ¶ 16, 606 P.2d 554, 558.

XX.

Defendant is under no duty to report risks involved in a procedure if fhll disclosure would be detrimental to the patients well-being or if thU disclosure would necessarily alarm or frighten the patient. Id.

XXI.

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

XXII.

Any care and treatment provided to the Plaintiff was conducted with the informed consent of all necessary parties.

XXIII.

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

XXIV.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were caused by the acts or negligence of a person or persons other than this Defendant, over whom this Defendant exercised no control or supervision.

XXV.

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

XXVI.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable complications due to the underlying conditions ofthe Plaintiff, for which this Defendant is not responsible.

XXVII.

Any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff were caused by a pre-existing or post- developing, unrelated medical condition, disease, illness, or infection of the Plaintiff for which Defendant is not responsible.

XXVIII.

Defendant generally and specifically adopt any and all affirmative defenses available under the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, common law or statutory law (including but not limited to those identified herein and 12 OKLA. STAT. Aw’. § 2008, 2009 and 2012).

XXIX.

The Petition of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant for punitive damages, and Defendant therefore requests the Court to strike any fliture allegations and prayer for punitive damages.

XXX.

The imposition of punitive damages against Defendant would be unconstitutional and would violate the rights ofDefendant under the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

XXXI.

Any claim by Plaintiff for punitive damages is barred and limited by 23 0.S. §91 et seq.

XXXII.

Any action by the Plaintiff against this Defendant is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

XrUII.

Failure to join a party.

XXXIV.

Improper party.

XXXV.

Another action pending between the same parties for the same claim(s).

XXXVI.

Lack of capacity to sue and lack of capacity to be sued.

XXXVII.

Laches.

XXXVIII.

Release.

Waiver.

XL.

Failure to hilly comply with all provisions ofó3 0. S. 1-1708.1 et seq., the Affordable Access to Health Care Act. Defendant asserts all defenses and rights under said Act.

XLI.

23 0.5. § 61.2 et seq.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their Petition and that it be
dismissed herein, with expenses, costs and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Bryan Ashley Orme, M.D. appeared and answered as follows:


I.

Dr. Orme is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained
in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition. Therefore, Dr. Orme denies these allegations.

II.

Paragraphs 2 through 3 of Plaintiffs Petition contain allegations as to Defendants other than Dr. Orme. Therefore, no response to these allegations by Dr. Orme is. necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary to these paragraphs, Dr. Orme denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 through 3 of the Plaintiff’s Petition.

III.

Dr. Orme admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition.

x.

Dr. Orme admits that he was the cholecystectomy performed on March 28, 2010. Ms. Reynolds prior to the cholecystectomy. allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s

XI.

Dr. Orme admits that Ms. Reynolds cholecystectomy performed on March 28, 2010. allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s
Petition.

Dr. Orme denies the allegations

XII.
contained
anesthesiologist during Ms. Reynol&
Dr. Orme further admits that he evaluate
Dr. Orme denies the remainder of th
Petition.
suffered a cardiac arrest during th Dr. Orme denies the remainder of th( Petition.
in paragraphs 14 through 19 of Plaintiff’

XIII.

Paragraph 20 of the Plaintiffs Petition contains a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent any response is deemed necessary, Dr. Orme denies these allegations.

XIV.

Dr. Orme admits that Plaintiff has obtained a written report from a general surgeon,
William Owen Cramer, M.D. Dr. Orme further admits that Dr. Cramer’s report states that
Plaintiffs cause of action is based on good cause. Dr. Orme denies the remainder of the
allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Petition. Further, Dr. Orme denies that
Dr. Cramer is qualified to provide an expert opinion as to the care rendered by Dr. Orme.

Iv.

Dr. Orme admits that he is an employee of Affiliated Anesthesiologist, L.L.C Dr. Orme denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff Petition.

V.

Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains allegations as to a Defendant other that Dr. Orme. Therefore, no response to these allegations by Dr. Orme is necessary. To th extent that a response is deemed necessary to this paragraph, Dr. Orme denies the allegation! contained in paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s Petition.

VI.

Dr. Orme admits that he provided care to Rebecca Reynolds in Oklahoma County Oklahoma. Dr. Orme denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 o Plaintiffs Petition.

VII.

Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs Petition contains legal conclusions to which no respons is necessary. To the extent any response is deemed necessary, Dr. Orme denies thes allegations.

VIII.

Dr. Orme admits the allegations in paragraphs 9 through 10 of Plaintiffs Petition.

Ix.

Dr. Orme admits that Ms. Reynolds underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by Dr. Kilgore, on March 28, 2010. Dr. Orme denies the remainder of th allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Petition.

xv.

Dr. Orme denies the allegations contained in the Wherefore paragraph of Plaintiff’:
Petition.

XVI.

Each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiffs Petition, which is not specificall) admitted, is hereby denied.

XVII.

For further answer and defense, Dr. Orme contends that the Plaintiffs Petition faib to state a cause of action against him, in whole or in part.

Xv”.

For further answer and defense, Plaintiffs claims are subject to the procedures anc limitations set forth in the Affordable Access to Health Care Act and the Comprehensivc Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009.

IX.

For further answer and defense, Dr. Orme contends that Ms. Reynolds knew of the material risks and alternatives to the course of treatment proposed to her.

XX.

For further answer and defense, Dr. Orme contends that any damages claimed by the Plaintiff were caused or contributed to by intervening andlor supervening acts or omissions for which Dr. Orme is not responsible.

XXI.

For further answer and defense, Dr. Orme contends that the acts or omissions o Plaintiff and/or third parties over whom Dr. Orme had no control caused or contributed to th damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

XXII.

Inasmuch as discovery is continuing, Dr. Orme requests that he be allowed to amern his Answer upon the completion of discovery.

Mercy Health Center, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

I.

This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained
in the Petition of the Plaintiff except such allegations as are hereinafter specifically admitted.

II.

Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 1 of the Petition of the Plaintiff, therefore, those allegations are denied.

III.

The allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Petition of the Plaintiff do
not pertain to this Defendant.

Therefore, Defendant defers pleading to the appropriate parties.
Defendant denies the allegations to any extent Plaintiff may have intended for them to address Defendant.

IV.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 6 of Plaintiffs Petition, this
Defendant admits that it is a corporation doing business in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
Defendant ffirther admits that it was a corporation doing business in Oklahoma County, State of
Oklahoma in March of 2010.

V.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant admits that Rebecca Reynolds was seen at Mercy Health Center in Oklahoma County on or about March of 2010. As to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, Defendant generally and specifically denies the allegations contained therein.

VI.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 9 or Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant admits that on or about March 10, 2010, Rebecca Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center.

VII.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, Defendant admits that Dr. Kilgore is a general surgeon and that Rebecca Reynolds was admitted to Mercy Health Center and treated for cholecystitis in March of 2010. Defendant generally and specifically denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11.

VIII.

The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 12 of the Petition of the Plaintiff do not pertain
to this Defendant. Therefore, Defendant defers pleading to the appropriate parties. Defendant denies the allegations to any extent Plaintiff may have intended for them to address Defendant.

Ix.

Defendant is without sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the Petition of the Plaintiff, therefore, those allegations are denied.

x.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Petition ofthe Plaintiff. Defendant further denies that it negligently credentialed Defendants Kilgore and Orme and that Defendants Kilgore and Orme were ostensible agents of this Defendant.

XI.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of the Petition of the Plaintiff, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is the proper party to bring this action. Further, Defendant denies that Plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from an expert who having reviewed the available, relevant material, opined a reasonable interpretation of the facts supporting a finding that the acts and omissions of Defendant Dr. Kilgore and Defendant Dr. Orme constituted medical negligence.

XIL

Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs is entitled to relief as requested in parts 1,2, 3 and 4 of the Wherefore Paragraph of the Petition of Plaintiff.

XIII.

Defendant specifically denies that it’s conduct resulted in injuries and/or damages to Plaintiff
or his decedent. Defendant specifically denies that any care rendered by it, it’s agents, and/or employees was at any time negligent or below the standard of care.

XIV.

Defendant states that all acts and/or omissions on its’ part were at all times and in every manner proper and applicable to this Defendant. Defendant states that its credentialing of both Dr. Kilgore and Dr. Orme was appropriate and within the applicable standards of care. Defendant denies that its credentialing of both Dr. Kilgore and Dr. Orme was improper.

XV.

Defendant denies that any act and/or omissions on its’ part was a proximate cause of any injury to Plaintiff or his decedent.

XVI.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff or his decedent sustained any injuries or suffered any damages by reason of any alleged act or omission on the part of Defendant.

XVII.

Discovery being incomplete Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend it’s Answer in any particular or to add any affirmative defense as more information becomes available through the discovery process.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For further Answer and Affirmative defense, Defendant, Mercy Health Center, Inc., alleges and states as follows:

XVIII.

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

XIX.

Plaintiff and his son are improper parties.

XX.

Any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff or his decedent were caused by the voluntary assumption of the risk.

XXI.

Any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff or his decedent were caused or contributed to by the acts, conduct, or negligence of Plaintiff’s decedent.

XXII.

Plaintiff’s damages are limited pursuantto 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1A et. Seq. and 23 O.S. § 61.2.

XXIII.

Any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff or his decedent were caused by intervening or supervening causes for which this Defendant is not responsible.

XXIV.

The proximate cause of any damages and/or injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff and/or his decedent were an unavoidable casualty or inherent physiological problem in Rebecca Reynolds’ physical constitution over which this Defendant had no control.

xxv.

The Petition of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant for punitive damages, and Defendant therefore requests the Court to strike any future allegations and prayers for punitive damages.

XXVI.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligent hiring and/or retention.

XXVII.

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, including but not limited to those available pursuant to t2 O.S. §2008, 2009 and 2012.

XXVIII.

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

XXIX.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Answer and Affirmative Defenses as discovery is ongoing.

m.

Any injuries and/or damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff and/or his decedent were caused by the acts or negligence of a person or persons other than this Defendant, over whom this Defendant exercised no control and for whose acts or negligence this Defendant is not responsible.

XXXI.

Mercy Health Center, Inc., is not a proper party to this action.

XXXII.

Defendant demands a jury trial.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc., hereby requests Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed with costs and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Order Sealing Portion of Court File

NOW on this 22nd day of May, 2013, the above styled and captioned cause of action comes on for hearing at the request of the parties to seal a portion of the court file due to the fact that those portions of the court file which the parties seek to seal contain confidential financial information of the parties, including the identity and financial information of a minor. The Plaintiff, Ronald Reynolds, Jr., surviving spouse and Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Kathlene Reynolds, deceased, appears by and through his counsel of records, R. Ben Houston. The Defendants, Brandon H. Kilgore, M.D., and Edmond General Surgery, L.L.C., appear by and through their counsel of record, Christopher J. Boyer. The Defendants, Bryan Ashley Orme, M.D., and Affiliated Anesthesiologists, L.L.C., appeared by and through their counsel of record, Kevin Driskill. The Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc., appears by and through its counsel of record, Kevin K. Trout. The Court, having been advised of the premises of the request and pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.25 and 12 OS. §
3226(C), finds it is necessary in the interests of justice that certain materials in (his case be filed under seal, grants the Joint Application and orders the clerk of this court to seal the following pleadings in this action:

1. Order Approving Settlement and Disbursing Settlement Proceeds;

2. The Order for Deposit of Settlement Funds; and

The Court further orders that in no event shall the portions of the Court file which the Court has ordered sealed be opened without a further Order of this Court and only after each of the Defendants have received notice of any request to unseal the Court file and have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Court as to whether the Court file should be unsealed. Notice of any attempt to unseal the Court file shall be given to the Defendants through their counsel. Contact information for counsel for the Defendants is as follows:
Counsel for Dr. Kilgore and Edmond General Surgery, L.L.C.:

Alexander C. Vosler

Christopher J. Boyer

Johnson Hanan and Vosler

Chase Tower

100 N. Broadway, Suite 2750

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Telephone: (405) 232-6100

Counsel for Dr. Orme and Affiliated Anesthesiologists, L.L.C.:

Kevin Driskill

Driskill Law Firm

Chase Tower

100 N. Broadway, Suite 2300

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Telephone: (405) 272-9700

Counsel for Mercy Health Center, Inc.

Michael J. Heron

Kevin K. Trout

Cody J. Roberson

Heron, Fox & Trout, P.C.

2933 NW 156ih Street

Edmond, OK 73013

Telephone: (405) 513-7111

IT IS ThEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that those portions of the Court file set forth above shall be sealed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Comment: This is but another example of the insurance and medical communities hiding what they have had to do to settle claims made against health care providers who have harmed patients by delivering substandard care to them.