Date: 01-31-2015

Case Style: Jack Lee France v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. AHS Hillcrest Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Hillcrest Medical Center, Durwood Earnest Neal, Jr., M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2013-4381

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Tulsa Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Karen Callahan and Ryan D. Ensley

Alan Campbell and Michaelle C. Huffman for Durwood Earnest Neal, Jr., M.D.

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for his causes of action against the Defendants, alleges and states as follows:
I. PARTIES/JURISDICTION/VENUE
The Plaintiff is a resident of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. The Defendant, Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., (“ISI”) is a foreign corporation, doing business in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
where the causes of action arose. The Defendant AHS Hillcrest Medical Center, LLC
(“AilS”) is a foreign limited liability company, doing business as Hillcrest Medical
Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Defendant Durwood Earnest Neal, Jr., (“NEAL”) is a
Medical Doctor and Urology Specialist who operated upon the Plaintiff at Hillcrest
Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the
Parties and subject matter. Venue is also appropriate.
On March 21, 2013, Plaintiff was admitted to Hillcrest Medical Center, owned and operated by AilS, a foreign limited liability company, doing business as Hillcrest Medical Center (“AilS”), by Durwood Earnest Neal, Jr., M.D., (“NEAL”) for a robotic radical prostatectomy. Neal performed the operation with a Da Vinci robotic device, which was manufactured, sold and distributed by the Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“ISI”). Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the robotic device was leased or owned by AilS for use by physicians with privileges to practice at Hillcrest Medical Center, such as NEAL.
During dissection, after completely freeing the prostate, NEAL noted a small tear in the rectum. During the anastomosis, there were at least 10 episodes of alarms that went off, secondary to the right hand of the prostate. This, on two separate occasions, broke the suture and on every other situation, caused the #1 arm to drop the needle. In summary, the robotic device malfunctioned throughout NEAL’s surgical procedure. However, NEAL negligently continued the surgery through at least 10 episodes of alarms, when he knew or should have known that the robotic device was malfunctioning, all to the detriment of the patient Thereafter, according to NEAL’s written description of this procedure, “We called the company and asked them what was going on”, while the malfunctioning robotic device “continued to do this”. In response, NEAL was informed that a technician would be sent out “to fix it”. However, the patient was gravely injured as a result of the malfunctioning, robotic device, and its continued negligent use by NEAL, all for which the Plaintiff seeks damages.
Ill. CAUSES OF ACTION
1. Manufacturers’ Products Liability vs. 1Sf and AHS
Defendant, 151, manufactured, sold and/or leased the robotic device, which was used by NEAL during the surgery. 151 is in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or leasing these products. Upon information and belief, AilS owned and/or leased the robotic device for use by physicians with privileges at Hillcrest Medical Center. The robotic device at issue was defective and malfunctioned because of the defect. Furthermore, the robotic device was unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiff, a person who might be reasonably expected to be affected by this product. The device was defective at the time it was manufactured, sold and/or leased by 151, or left its control. The Plaintiff, a patient upon whom the robotic device was utilized for surgery, could have reasonably been affected by the product, and in fact, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and damages directly caused by the defective and malfunctioning device.
2. Negligence vs. ISI and ABS
ISI was negligent during the sale, distribution, maintenance, and lack of training and education concerning the product, and in other manners, as a result of which the Plaintiff was seriously injured and suffered damages.
Al-IS was negligent in its lack of training and education about and leasing of the product without proper maintenance or standards through service engineers and otherwise, which contributed to the Plaintiffs serious injuries and damages.
3. Negligence/Medical Malpractice vs. NEAL
In treating and operating upon a patient a specialist must use his best judgment and apply with ordinary care and diligence, the knowledge and skill that is possessed and used by other specialists in good standing engaged in the same field of practice at that time. This is a higher degree of knowledge and skill than that of a general practitioner. Defendant NEAL, failed to exercise ordinary care, or from his lack of knowledge and skill possessed by other specialists in good standing, breached the standards of care during his treatment and surgery upon the Plaintiff. Furthermore, when it became apparent, even to NEAL, that the robotic device was malfunctioning, and there was more than one medically accepted method of treatment, NEAL failed to proceed with another procedure or otherwise prevent the patient from the continued damage, which was being caused by the malfunctioning robotic device.
4 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Plaintiffs injuries and damages were directly caused by the robotic device at issue, which was solely within the control of NEAL. Furthermore, Plaintiffs injuries were those that do not ordinarily occur under the circumstances in the absence of negligence on the part of the Defendants, and therefore, they are liable under the theory of the res ipsa loquitur.
IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests actual damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs, against all Defendants, along with court costs, prejudgment interest and any further relief that the Court deems just. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests punitive and
exemplary damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs, as determined by a jury,
against Defendants, ISA and AHS, as a result of their reckless disregard for the public safety, in order to punish these Defendants and set an example to others. These Defendants either knew, or else did not care, that there was a substantial and unnecessary risk of injury and damages to the Plaintiff and others, but failed to either determine the seriousness of the danger or reduce the risk to an acceptable minimum level. The conduct of the Defendants was wanton and reckless and should, therefore, be punished.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants, along with his costs, prejudgment interest and any further relief that the Court deems just.

Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice as to AHS Hillcrest Medical Center, LLC

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: