Date: 08-09-2016

Case Style: Darlene Hill and William Hill, Deceased, v. Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation, Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center, Peak Medical Corporation, Martin Hubbartt, Administrator

Case Number: CJ-2013-5791

Judge: Caroline Wall

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Jacques Balette

Jason Young

and

Ray Maples

Defendant's Attorney:

Kate D. Thompson

Description: Darlene Hill and William Hill, Deceased, sued Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation, Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center, Peak Medical Corporation, Martin Hubbartt, Administrator on medical negligence theories claiming that William Hill was a resident at Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma and, as a direct result of substandard care provided to him by the Defendants, he died.

1. Decedent: William Hill was a resident at Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation located in Tulsa, Oklahoma from approximately December 8, 2009 to December 16, 2011. As a consequence of the wrongful conduct complained of herein William Hill passed on December 24, 2011.

2. Plaintiff: Darlene Hill is the surviving spouse of William Hill and brings this action as the Personal Representative of the Estate of William Hill, Deceased, and on behalf of all wrongful death survivors of the decedent pursuant to: a) Oklahoma Survivor Statutes, OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1051; and, b) Oklahoma Wrongful Death Statutes, OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1053.

3. Defendant, SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., is a for-profit foreign corporation. At all times material to this lawsuit, said Defendant did business in the state of Oklahoma, and in Oklahoma County, owning, operating, managing, and/or maintaining nursing homes and nursing facilities. Suit is brought against said entity in its assumed or common name. This Defendant can be served by serving its Registered Agent, the Oklahoma Secretary of State, 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 101, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK 73105

4. Defendant, SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, is a for-profit foreign corporation. At all times material to this lawsuit, said Defendant did business in the state of Oklahoma, and in Oklahoma County, owning, operating, managing, and/or maintaining nursing homes and nursing facilities. Suit is brought against said entity in its assumed or common name. This Defendant can be served by serving its Registered Agent, Corporation

Service Company, 115 SW 891
Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK 73139-8511.

5. Defendant, PEAK MEDICAL OKLAHOMA NO. 5, INC. D/B/A WOODLAND VIEW CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER (hereinafter "Woodland View") is a foreign corporation which at times material owned and conducted business as a nursing facility licensed under the laws of the state of Oklahoma at 7707 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133. Suit is brought against said facility in its assumed or common name. At times material to this lawsuit, said Defendant did business in the state of Oklahoma at the aforesaid address. This Defendant can be served by serving its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company, 115 SW 89'h Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK 73139-8511.

6. Defendant, PEAK MEDICAL CORPORATION, 1s a for-profit foreign corporation. At all times material to this lawsuit, said Defendant did business in the state of Oklahoma, and in Oklahoma County, owning, operating, managing, and/or maintaining nursing homes and nursing facilities. Suit is brought against said entity in its assumed or common name. This Defendant can be served by serving its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company, 115 SW 89'h Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK 73139-8511.

7. Defendant, MARTIN HUBBARTT, is a Licensed Nursing Home Administrator practicing under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, and is sued in his individual capacity. Said Defendant may be served at his residence located at 1035 Timber Ridge Road, Harrah, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma 73045-8831.

DEFINITIONS

8. Whenever the term "Defendants" is utilized within this Petition, such term collectively refers to and includes all named Defendants in this lawsuit, unless specifically restricted within a cause of action set forth below.

9. Whenever in this Petition the term "Controlling Corporate Defendants" is used, such term refers jointly and severally to Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation and Peak Medical Corporation.

10. Under Oklahoma law, a corporation can only act through its officers, employees,
agents and servants. Any act or omission of an officer or employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment or authority constitutes an act or omission of the corporation. Accordingly, Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of respondeat superior. Whenever inthis petition it is alleged that any Defendant or Controlling Corporate Defendant engaged in any act or omission or had a requisite level of knowledge, such reference shall mean that the officers, agents, servants, representatives, and/or employees who were: (a) under the control of said Defendant(s); and, (b) acting in the course and scope of their employment relationship with said Defendant(s) engaged in the act or omission or had the requisite level of knowledge.

11. References within this Petition to "Woodland View" shall mean the nursing home and skilled nursing unit operated under the name of Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center at the address of 7707 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133. Furthermore, whenever in this Petition it is alleged that Woodland View engaged in any act or omission or had some level of knowledge about an event, said reference shall include the licensee of said facility, to wit; Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. as well as its officers, employees, agents and servants who acted under the control and within the scope of employment of said Defendant.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Summary Statement of the Case

14. This is a case about a nursing home (Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center) that was required and directed by its parent companies (Controlling Corporate Defendants) to increase its occupancy rates by targeting and recruiting high acuity, high rate of pay patients, whose needs were well beyond the care capabilities of the nursing home's staff.

15. Financial Motive for Corporate Defendants' Direct Participation in Nursing
Home Operations: Unsatisfied with its revenue and financial performance, Controlling Corporate Defendants directly participated in, controlled and dominated the operations of the nursing home, mandating in reckless disregard for the health and safety of its residents the following dangerous policies and practices: (a) the aggressive recruitment and admission of high acuity patients and increase in patient census when said Defendants knew that said nursing home did not have staff sufficient in number, qualification of competency to provide the care required by state law, regulations and minimum standards; (b) retention of patients whose needs exceeded the qualification and care capability of the nursing home staff; and (c) continuing suppression, concealment, and cover-up of ongoing negligence and violation of state law, regulations and minimum standards.

16. Compounding the danger, Controlling Corporate Defendants refused to implement safety policies, procedures and systems to ensure that: (a) the acuity levels and needs of residents were consistent with the numbers and qualifications of direct caregivers; and (b) treatment/care prescribed by a physician was provided in accordance with state laws and professional standards.

17. Accordingly, Controlling Corporate Defendants, in order to satisfy their desire to grow profits, directly participated in creating a dangerous condition that caused harm to residents, superseding and disregarding the duties which the state of Oklahoma imposed upon Woodland View. One such resident who was recruited and admitted to Defendants' nursing home was Mr. William Hill. As a direct result of the routine practices (as such term is defined in the Oklahoma Evidence Code § 2406) of Defendants named herein, William Hill suffered
catastrophic injuries, including unnecessary pain and suffering, urosepsis, dehydration, weight loss, pressure sores and an untimely death.

B. The Profound Neglect of Mr. Hill

18. Mr. Hill was admitted to Woodland View on December 8, 2009 as a totally dependent resident. Defendants were well aware that Mr. Hill depended upon Woodland View for twenty-four (24) hour nursing care which included, at a minimum, the following essential care services:
a. Ordinary and standard care to prevent the occurrence of pressure sores, including:

a.I. Keeping Mr. Hill's skin clean, dry and routinely offloading pressure;

2. Getting him out of bed, up and dressed;

3. Assisting Mr. Hill to the toilet when he exhibited behaviors that indicated that he needed to void;

4. Providing pericare, bathing, clean clothes and linens in a timely manner after any incontinent episodes;

5. Providing Mr. Hill with routine turning and repositioning at least every two hours while in bed or in a chair, to prevent the occurrence of pressure sores;

6. Systematically inspecting and routinely monitoring Mr. Hill's skin for any breakdown, development of pressure sores or changes in condition; and

7. Providing Mr. Hill with necessary pressure relief equipment;

b. Immediately notifying Mr. Hill's attending physician and family of any significant change in condition, need to alter treatment or threat to Mr. Hill's health;

c. Creating an individualized care plan of the daily nursing care required by Mr. Hill based on his specific condition and needs, which was updated and revised when he experienced a significant change in condition or if care planned measures were ineffective;

d. Administering all treatments in accordance with physician's orders, as well as all nursing care in accordance with Mr. Hill's individualized care plan;

e. Providing Mr. Hill with adequate fluids each day to prevent dehydration;

f. Monitoring Mr. Hill's fluid intake and output on a per shift basis each day to ensure adequate intake;

g. Providing Mr. Hill with adequate nutrition, assisting him to eat, monitoring the percentage of food and fluids consumed and providing Mr. Hill with daily nutritional supplements in accordance with physician and/or registered dietician orders;

h. Obtaining a dietary consult for Mr. Hill when necessary; and

k. Monitoring Mr. Hill for any signs and symptoms of pain, performing a systematic pain assessment and implementing an appropriate pain management program when indicated.

19. By reason of Mr. Hill's needs and his degree of dependency upon the nursing home staff, Defendants fully understood the consequences of failing to provide such routine services in accordance with fundamental standard of care.
20. Moreover, by reason of Defendants' experience and background in nursing home care, said Defendants were acutely aware that the routine failure to provide the kind of basic care required by Mr. Hill could jeopardize the health and life of such a resident, cause urosepsis, dehydration, weight loss, and pressure sores, resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering.

21. Due to Defendants' ongoing and routine indifference for Mr. Hill's basic care and needs, he suffered the following avoidable injuries:

21.a. Urosepsis;

21.b. Significant untreated pain;

21.c. Dehydration;

21.d. Weight loss;

21.e. Pressure sores;

f. Violation of his dignity; and

g. An untimely death.

22. The above catastrophic injuries and death of Mr. Hill were caused by Defendants' profound neglect, violations of the Oklahoma Care Act, gross negligence, fraud, and reckless,
willful, wanton and oppressive disregard for Mr. Hill's safety.

C. The Nature of Corporate Defendants' Business and Participation in Woodland View Operations

23. Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. was at all times material to this lawsuit a publicly traded for-profit corporation that was in the business of owning and operating a network of nursing homes across the United States. One such nursing home was Woodland View where Mr. Hill was admitted to receive care and treatment.

24. At all times material to this lawsuit, Controlling Corporate Defendants were fully aware that the delivery of essential care services in each of its nursing homes hinged upon three fundamental fiscal and operational decisions: (I) the determination of the numbers and expenditures on staffing levels; (2) the determination of the census levels within the nursing home; and, (3) payor mix. The Controlling Corporate Defendants determined, controlled and enforced each of these critical decisions at every nursing home within their chain, including Woodland View despite the fact that said Controlling Corporate Defendants were neither licensed as a nursing home nor as health care providers within the State of Oklahoma.

25. Further, at all times material, critical operational decisions having impact on Woodland View's revenues and expenditures were centrally made and controlled at a corporate level by Controlling Corporate Defendants. More particularly, Controlling Corporate Defendants determined and controlled: the numbers of staff allowed to work in its chain of nursing homes; the expenditures for staffing at the nursing home; the revenue targets for each nursing home; the payor mix; and, census targets for each nursing home, as well as the patient recruitment programs and discharge practices at each nursing home. In sum, at all material times, all cash management functions, revenues and expenditure decisions at the nursing home level were tightly controlled at the corporate level by the aforesaid Controlling Corporate Defendants. This was the case at Woodland View.

26. The census edicts, aggressive marketing and admission practices, and resident discharge policies emanated from the top of said Defendants' corporate structure and were re­ emphasized down the chain of command on a continual basis. The above policies were mandatory and Woodland View acted in accordance within them, filling empty beds, recruiting high acuity patients, and maintaining a census level and staffing level that Controlling Corporate Defendants deemed appropriate.

27. The tight control exercised by Controlling Corporate Defendants over financial decisions that determined the delivery of care rendered at Woodland View and its other nursing homes grew out of its financial motivation and intent to increase revenues while restricting and/or reducing expenses.

28. Accordingly, decisions by Controlling Corporate Defendants as to staffing and census were determined by the financial needs of the company as opposed to the acuity levels and needs of the residents.

29. Controlling Corporate Defendants, therefore, directly participated in a continuing course of negligent conduct, requiring Woodland View to recruit and retain heavier care, higher pay residents to the facility, when the needs of the patient population exceeded the capacity of staff, while at the same time creating, implementing and enforcing dangerous operational budgets at Woodland View which deprived residents of adequate staffing, and caused widespread neglect. In so doing, said Defendants disregarded, superseded, and violated the duties and responsibilities imposed on a licensed nursing home, to wit: Woodland View by the State of Oklahoma.

D. Woodland View and Controlling Corporate Defendants' Notice, Motive and Routine Practices

30. Mr. Hill's neglect was foreseeable. Controlling Corporate Defendants and Woodland View were repeatedly placed on notice of the dangerous nature of their conduct before Mr. Hill's residency and on an ongoing basis by virtue of:
30.a. Complaints by staff, residents and the families of residents growing out of the dangerous routine practices at Woodland View which form the basis of this lawsuit;

30.b. Lawsuits placing Controlling Corporate Defendants on notice of the same dangerous routine practices and failures described herein;

30.c. Extensive and frequent complaints made by staff, residents and the families of residents to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and other regulatory agencies regarding the same dangerous routine practices and failures at Woodland View, which resulted in ongoing investigations of Woodland View; and

30.d. The widespread extent of ongoing dangerous care practices and neglect occurring in Woodland View.

31. Further, Plaintiff has reason to believe that before, during and after Mr. Hill's residency Defendants engaged in ongoing and routine practices that constituted a continuing course of negligence, "neglect" as such term is defined by law, and fraud at Woodland View arising out of:
31.a. The dangerous and continuing practice of failing to have sufficient nursing personnel, including nurse aides, on duty to meet the care needs of resident population as determined by medical orders and individualized care plans;

31.b. The relentless practice of recruiting heavier care residents for which the nursing home received higher reimbursements when Woodland View did not have sufficient numbers of nursing personnel and nurse aides to provide the amount and kind of nursing care, personal care and supervision required to meet the needs of each resident, including Mr. Hill; and

31.c. The ongoing practice of admitting, retaimng and failing to discharge residents, in violation of the law, whose nursing care and treatment needs could not be met because Woodland View staff did not have sufficient time, qualifications or training to provide the required nursing care, necessary health related services, personal care, and ordered treatments, in accordance with state law, regulations and professional standards.

32. These dangerous and routine practices arose out of Defendants' financial motives described above. Moreover, they were ongoing in nature beginning long before Mr. Hill was admitted to the nursing home and continuing after his discharge. Such routine practices caused significant injury to not only Mr. Hill, but also to other similarly-situated residents who were subjected to substantially similar conditions. Accordingly, Plaintiff would show that: a) the neglect of Mr. Hill grew out of an ongoing and "routine practice of an organization" within the meaning of OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, §§ 2404(b) and 2406; and, (b) Defendants were repeatedly warned and placed on notice of these dangerous and routine practices.

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DEFENDANTS' LIABILITY

33. Controlling Corporate Defendants are sued for their direct participation in the torts and causes of action made the basis of this lawsuit, having: (a) disregarded the duties and responsibilities which Woodland View, as a licensed nursing home, owed to the State of Oklahoma and its residents; (b) created the dangerous conditions described by interfering with and causing Woodland View to violate Oklahoma statutes, laws and minimum regulations governing the operation of said nursing home; (c) superseding the statutory rights and duties owed to nursing home residents through its dangerous directives, policies, and control of Woodland View; and, (d) caused the harm complained of herein. Further, pursuant to Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, §§ 1-1939 and 1-1902(16), Controlling Corporate Defendants are sued in their capacity as an "owner" for the negligent acts or omissions which caused the death of William Hill.

34. Woodland View is sued in its capacity as a licensed nursing home and partial operator of said facility for: (a) violations of state laws and regulations governing the provision of care to nursing home residents; and (b) failure to exercise ordinary care as a licensed nursing home to guard against injury.
35. In addition to being legally responsible for the wrongful acts detailed above as a direct participant, Plaintiff would plead in the alternative that Controlling Corporate Defendants are also indirectly and vicariously liable and responsible for each and every tort and cause of action stated within this Petition and the resultant damages. More specifically, Controlling Corporate Defendants are vicariously liable and responsible for the wrongful conduct detailed above and below under the alternative legal theories:

35.a. Agency: At all times material to this lawsuit, Peak Medical Oklahoma No.

5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center acted as the agent of one or more of the other Controlling Corporate Defendants. As such, Controlling Corporate Defendants ratified or authorized the acts or omissions of Defendant Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center;
35.b. Joint Enterprise: In the alternative, to the extent that Controlling Corporate Defendants are found to be separate corporate entities, Defendants Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.; Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation; Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center; and Peak Medical Corporation each remain liable for the acts and omissions of the others because said Defendants operated Woodland View as a joint enterprise. Said
Defendants engaged in a joint venture and acted in concert m the
operation, management, and maintenance of Woodland View. These entities had an equal right to control their venture as a whole, as well as to control the operation and management of the subject facility; and
35.c. Alter Ego: At all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View was a subsidiary and the alter ego of the Controlling Corporate Defendants. Defendant Peale Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. d/b/a Woodland View Care and Rehabilitation Center was a mere conduit through which Controlling Corporate Defendants did business. The management and the operations of Woodland View were so assimilated within the parent that the aforementioned subsidiary was simply a name through which the parent Controlling Corporate Defendants conducted business. Controlling Corporate Defendants completely dominated and controlled the business affairs of Woodland View insomuch as said subsidiary was organized and operated as a mere tool of the parent company. Any assertions by Controlling Corporate Defendants and Woodland View that each are separate corporate fictions having "an independent and separate existence"is nothing more than a sham and part of a scheme to perpetuate fraud, promote injustice and evade existing legal obligations.
36. Further, Defendant Martin Hubbartt, is sued in his individual capacity for his negligence as the licensed nursing home administrator of Woodland View and for failures in discharging the responsibilities imposed by law upon the administrator of said facility.
COUNT ONE: ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.

38. Defendants owed a duty to their residents, including William Hill to: (a) exercise ordinary care and attention required under all circumstances that was appropriate to the mental and physical condition of the resident; and (b) supervise the care rendered at the nursing home to ensure that such care was consistent with established and recognized medical practice standards within the community and minimum professional standards of care.
39. Furthermore, Defendants owed a specific duty to comply with those minimum rules and regulations as detailed in Count Three: Negligence Per Se for Violation of Nursing Home Regulations Imposed by Statute below. Insomuch as these regulations establish and are probative of the standard of care and the duties owed by Woodland View to Mr. Hill, they are incorporated herein.
40. Defendants repeatedly breached the aforementioned duties and engaged m negligence by:
40.a. Failing to provide a nursing staff that was properly staffed, qualified, and trained to meet the needs ofresidents including Mr. Hill;

40.b. Failing to provide nursing personnel sufficient in number and qualifications to ensure that the treatment and care needs of residents were met and that Mr. Hill was appropriately monitored and assessed;

40.c. Failing to provide services by sufficient number of nursing personnel on a 24 hours basis to provide nursing care to all residents, including Mr. Hill, in accordance with the individualized care plan of each specific resident;

40.d. Failing to notify Mr. Hill's attending physician and family of any significant change in condition;

40.e. Failing to monitor and investigate causes of infection and the manner of spread of infections at Woodland View, as required by state law;


14



•
40.f. Failing to: 1) monitor Mr. Hill for signs and symptoms of pain; 2) performing a systematic pain assessment; 3) implementing an appropriate pain management program when indicated; and, 4) provide ordered medications to alleviate Mr. Hill's pain.

40.g. Failing to create an individualized care plan of the daily nursing care required by Mr. Hill based on his specific condition and needs, which was updated and revised when he experienced a significant change in condition or if care planned measures were ineffective;

40.h. Failing to administer all treatments in accordance with physician's orders, as well as all nursing care in accordance with Mr. Hill's individualized care plan;

1. Failing to provide Mr. Hill with adequate fluids each day to prevent dehydration;

J. Failing to monitor Mr. Hill's fluid intake and output on a per shift basis each day to ensure adequate intake;

k. Failing to provide Mr. Hill with adequate nutrition, assisting him to eat, monitoring the percentage of food and fluids consumed and providing Mr. Hill with daily nutritional supplements in accordance with physician and/or registered dietician orders;

I. Failing to provide ordinary and standard care to prevent the occurrence of pressure sores;

m. Failing to adequately hire, train supervise and retain a sufficient amount of competent and qualified registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, nurse assistants and other personnel in said facility to assure that William Hill received care, treatment, and services in accordance with State regulations and minimum professional standards;

n. Failing to provide adequate supervision to the nursing staff so as to ensure that William Hill received sufficient nursing observation and examination of the responses, symptoms, and progress in the physical condition of William Hill;

o. Failing to provide goods or services necessary to avoid physical harm or mental anguish to Mr. Hill;

p. Failing to adopt and enforce policies and procedures necessary to avoid injury to residents;


15

•
q. Failing to ensure that the medical director for Woodland View was made aware of continuing quality care issues related to pressure sores and infections, as required by state law;

r. Continuing failure to establish and implement appropriate corporate safety, training, staffing, and fundamental nursing care policies to prevent harm to residents and avoid the known consequences of inadequate care;

s. Failure to adequately evaluate, and supervise nursing personnel so as to ensure that William Hill received appropriate nursing care, in accordance with Defendants' policy and procedure manuals and corresponding regulations implemented expressly pursuant thereto by the Oklahoma State Department of Health and its agents;

t. Failing to adopt adequate guidelines, policies, and procedures for documenting, maintaining files, investigating, and responding to any incident or complaint regarding the quantity of resident care, the quality of patient or resident care, or misconduct by Defendants' employees, irrespective of whether such complaint derived from a state or federal survey agency, a resident of said facilities, an employee of said facilities or any interested person;

u. Failing to establish and implement appropriate corporate budgeting policies that were consistent with the needs of residents, which Woodland View had accepted and promised to care for, in accordance with the minimum standards of care, Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1901, et seq., and regulations promulgated under such statute;

v. Failing to ensure that the rules and regulations designed to protect the health and safety of the residents, such as William Hill, as promulgated by the Oklahoma Legislature in the Nursing Home Care Act and corresponding regulations implemented expressly pursuant thereto by the Oklahoma State Department of Health and its agents, were consistently complied with on an ongoing basis;

w. Failing to ensure that Mr. Hill's clinical record was created and maintained in accordance with professional standards of care;

x. Suppressing and concealing the ongoing neglect of Mr. Hill;

y. Failing to responsibly ensure that appropriate corrective measures were implemented to correct problems concerning inadequate resident care and take reasonable steps to prevent, eliminate, and correct deficiencies and problems in resident care;



16








•
z. Failing to observe and comply with infection control precautions and protect Mr. Hill from infection; and

aa. Repeated failure to coordinate nutrition and hydration concerns with Registered Dietitian and family on a timely basis and obtain necessary lab, resulting in weight loss.

41. Mr. Hill's injuries, pain, suffering and death were a direct and proximate result of

Defendants' acts or omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such wrongful acts or omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, was in reckless disregard for the rights of others, constitutes gross negligence, and/or was malicious.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
COUNT TWO: STATUTORY VIOLATION OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE UNDER THE NURSING HOME CARE ACT

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.
43. At all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View was under a continuing duty to ensure that its staff was familiar with and complied with all resident rights and duties established under the Nursing Home Care Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1901, et seq.
44. More particularly, Defendants caused the injury and death of Mr. Hill by violating the following express rights of Mr. Hill, including but not limited to:
44.a. Violating Mr. Hill's right to receive adequate and appropriate medical care consistent with established and recognized medical practice standards within the community as established under OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1- 1918(8)(5);



17

44.b. Violating Mr. Hill's right established under OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1- 1918(B)(12) to be free from neglect and mental abuse;

44.c. Violating Mr. Hill's right pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § l-1918(B)(7) to receive services with reasonable accommodation of the individual needs of Mr. Hill; and

44.d. Interfering with Mr. Hill's right to be fully informed by his attending physician of his medical condition as established also under OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1918(B)(5).

45. Additionally, Defendants violated its duties owed to Mr. Hill under OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1918(D) by failing to provide appropriate staff training to implement the rights set forth above.
46. The above violations, operating singularly and in combination caused the injury and death of Mr. Hill. Accordingly, Plaintiff invokes the provisions of OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1- l 918(F) seeking all damages recoverable and allowed by law.
47. Furthermore, Defendants engaged in acts and omissions which constituted statutory "neglect" within the meaning of: (a) OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1902(15) which defines "neglect" to mean the failure to provide goods and/or services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish or mental illness; and (b) OKLA. STAT. tit. 43A, § 10-103(11) which defines "neglect" to mean: (1) the failure to provide protection for a vulnerable adult who is unable to protect his or her own interest; (2) the failure to provide a vulnerable adult with adequate shelter, nutrition, health care, or clothing; or (3) negligent acts or omissions that result in harm or the unreasonable risk of harm to a vulnerable adult through the action, inaction, or lack of supervision by a caretaker providing direct services.
48. By reason of the fact that Woodland View's intentional or negligent acts or omissions caused the injury and death of Mr. Hill, said Defendants are also liable pursuant to the



18

e e
Nursing Home Care Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1939(A) and (B). Plaintiff seeks all damages recoverable and allowed by law under the foregoing statutory provision.
49. In accordance with OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, §1-1902(16), the owner of a nursing home is defined as follows:
"Owner" means a person, corporation, partnership, association, or other entity which owns a facility or leases a facility. The person or entity that stands to profit or lose as a result of the financial success or failure of the operation shall be presumed to be the owner of the facility.

50. Accordingly, Mr. Hill's injuries, pain, suffering and death were a direct and proximate result of such statutory violations and negligence per se set forth above, operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such statutory violations and negligence per se set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, was in reckless disregard for the rights of others, constitutes gross negligence, and/or was malicious.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
COUNT THREE: NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATION OF NURSING HOME REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY STATUTE

51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.
52. At all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View: (a) held a "license " to operate a "nursing facility" at the address of 7707 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133; and, (b) certified that it was licensed under the provisions of OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1- 1901, et seq. and "certified" as a "long term care facility" under the provisions of Title 63, Oklahoma Statutes.

53. Furthennore, at all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View contracted to:

(a) operate and provide required services to residents of its nursing home in compliance with all applicable state laws, rules and regulations which governed the operation of a nursing facility in Oklahoma; and, (b) operate and provide required services in accordance with accepted professional standards for the provision of medical, nursing and related services to its residents.
54. The afore-stated rules and regulations promulgated by the Oklahoma State Department of Health were: (a) designed to establish minimum standards of nursing home care for residents in the state of Oklahoma; (b) specifically created to protect a class of persons to which Mr. Hill was a member; (c) intended to prevent the death of Mr. Hill that was occasioned by nursing home neglect; and (d) required by statute to be complied with on an ongoing basis by nursing homes such as Woodland View.
55. Accordingly, at all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View was required to confonn their conduct and exercise that care prescribed by law and regulation to protect the health and safety of nursing home residents and patients such as Mr. Hill.
56. As detailed below, Woodland View violated state laws and regulations designed for the protection and safety of nursing home residents like Mr. Hill and are, therefore, negligent per se. More particularly, said Defendants were negligent per se in at least one or more of the following respects by:
a. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-9-5.l(A), (B) and (C) by failing to complete and implement resident assessments and care plans, including, but not limited to failing to perfonn pain assessments as required by
§ 310:675-9-5.l(C)(2);

b. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-9-5.l (c)(2) by failing to properly assess, manage, care plan for, and treat promptly and effectively Mr. Hill's pam;

c. Violating OKLA. ADMIN.CODE 310:675-9-1.l(b)( l) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J)
(K) (0) (P) and (2) (A) (B) and (F) by failing to provide Mr. Hill with basic nursing and personal care;

d. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-13-S(d) by failing to employ licensed nurses for a sufficient number of hours to meet the needs of residents, including Mr. Hill;

e. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-13-S(a) by failing to provide an organized and staffed nursing facility competent and capable of providing nursing and health-related services on a continuous basis to residents including Mr. Hill;

f. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-9-5.l (a) and (c)(3) in failing to accurately indicate Mr. Hills' needs and current status in his care plan as required by Jaw as well as failing to implement, comply with and update such care plan;

g. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-9-1.l(b)(l )(P) by failing to provide mandatory nursing care which includes recognizing and recording signs and symptoms of illness or injury to Mr. Hill, with action taken to treat such illness or injury;

h. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-7-10.l (a) and (j) by failing to create for the safety and well-being of Mr. Hill an accurate clinical record which contained important clinical documentation required by law;

1. Violating OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1939 by failing to immediately report to the appropriate persons and the Oklahoma State Department of Health the "neglect" of Mr. Hill, as such term is defined in OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, §1- 1902(15);

J. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-7-2.1 by failing to ensure the medical director of Woodland View was made aware of continuing quality of care issues; and

k. Violating OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-7-17.1 by failing to monitor and investigate causes of infections and the manner of spread of infections.

57. Defendants' ongoing neglect was further compounded by their continuing suppress10n, concealment and cover-up of the aforementioned acts and omissions and the misrepresentation and cover-up that Defendants engaged in with respect to complaints made to the Department of Health.



21








58. Mr. Hill's injuries, pain, suffering, and death were a direct and proximate result of the violations, acts and omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such violations, acts and omissions, set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, was in reckless disregard for the rights of others, constitutes gross negligence, and/or was malicious.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
COUNT FOUR: NEGLIGENCE OF MARTIN HUBBARTT

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-58 as if fully set forth herein.
60. Plaintiff would show that Defendant Martin Hubbartt, Administrator, at times relevant hereto, repeatedly, negligently, and knowingly failed to conform to the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice and the standard of a reasonably prudent Nursing Home Administrator. One or more of Defendant Martin Hubbartt's failures and violations of these standards singularly and collectively amounted to negligence and was a proximate cause of William Hill's serious injuries and the resulting damages in this case.
61. . Mr. Hill's pain, suffering and death were a direct and proximate result of the violations, acts and omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such wrongful acts or omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, was in reckless disregard for the rights of others, constitutes gross negligence, and/or was malicious.




22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by Jaw.
COUNT SIX: WOODLAND VIEW'S AND CONTROLLING CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' FRAUD

62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-61 as if fully set forth herein. The allegations set forth under Count Six pertain only to Woodland View and Controlling Corporate Defendants.
63. In addition to that wrongful conduct described above, Plaintiff would show that Woodland View and Controlling Corporate Defendants engaged in a continuing and routine practice of fraud which was a proximate cause of Mr. Hill's: (a) urosepsis; (b) dehydration; (c) untreated pain; (d) damages detailed below; and, (e) ultimate death.
64. More specifically, Woodland View and Controlling Corporate Defendants engaged in fraud by concealing, suppressing and failing to disclose material facts when:
a. Defendants were aware and knowledgeable of such material facts;

b. Defendants had a duty to disclose such facts;

c. Defendants knew that Mr. Hill and Plaintiff were ignorant of the same;

d. Defendants knew that Mr. Hill and Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth; and

e. Defendants' concealment, suppression and failure to disclose these material facts was intended to induce Mr. Hill and Plaintiff to take some action, to wit: to leave Mr. Hill as a resident of Woodland View.

65. Duty to Disclose Material Facts: At all times material to this lawsuit, said Defendants owed a duty to disclose material facts that would have affected William Hill and Plaintiff's decision to leave Mr. Hill as a resident of Woodland View. That duty arose from the



23

confidential and/or fiduciary relationship between said Defendants and William Hill and Plaintiff.
66. More particularly, at all material times to this lawsuit, a confidential and fiduciary relationship existed between said Defendants, Mr. Hill, and Plaintiff for the following reasons including, but not limited to:
a. Mr. Hill required skilled care and treatment from a professional and licensed healthcare provider;

b. Mr. Hill was a resident of Woodland View which was a professional and licensed healthcare provider that represented it could provide Mr. Hill with the necessary level of care and treatment he required; and

c. Mr. Hill depended solely upon the nursing home to meet his medical, nursing, and health care needs.

67. Moreover, at all times material to this lawsuit, Woodland View and Controlling Corporate Defendants' knowledge of its specific care, responsibilities and duties imposed by the above statutes, laws, regulations and minimum standards was vastly superior to that of William Hill and Plaintiff. Not only was the discharge of the foregoing duties the sole responsibility of Defendants, said Defendants held themselves out to William Hill and Plaintiff and to the State and Federal licensing and certification authority as being qualified, knowledgeable, skilled, and trained to provide resident care prescribed by law and professional standards.
68. The disparity in the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants resulting from Defendants' superior knowledge, experience, skill, and access to vital information necessary to evaluate the adequacy of nursing home care, was further magnified by the fact that the care provided to William Hill was determined by a sophisticated set of business decisions, census strategies and financial controls imposed by Defendants' corporate management upon Woodland View. William Hill, like other residents, and Plaintiff were unaware and/or uneducated about:



24

a. The control exercised by Controlling Corporate Defendants over Woodland View; and

b. The devastating impact that Controlling Corporate Defendants' financial decisions about census, resident acuity levels, resident discharge policies, and the numbers of qualified staff could have.

69. This information was uniquely within the knowledge and understanding of Defendants and underscored the fiduciary relationship existing between Mr. Hill and Defendants as well as the fiduciary duty owed by Defendants to disclose to Plaintiff: (a) any threat to Mr. Hill's health and safety, and (b) any dangerous practice or condition at Woodland View which posed a threat to said resident's health and safety.
70. Material Fact Suppression, Concealment and Cover-Up: On an ongoing basis before, during and after Mr. Hill's residency, Defendants engaged in a routine practice, as such term is defined in OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2406, of suppressing, concealing, and covering up material facts. Defendants suppressed, concealed and covered-up material facts, described below, in order to hide from residents such as William Hill the ongoing danger and threat to Mr. Hill's health and safety. Such suppression, concealment and failure to disclose was intended to discourage Plaintiff from removing him from the facility, thereby protecting Defendants' lucrative revenue stream and adhering to Defendants' corporate-prescribed patient recruitment policies and occupancy rates. More specifically, knowing that the corporate practices detailed herein constituted a danger to Mr. Hill's health and safety, and having a duty to disclose the same, said Defendants on a continuing basis, perpetuated and engaged in fraud by:
a. Suppressing, concealing and failing to disclose to William Hill and Plaintiff that the staff of Woodland View was not sufficient in number, qualifications, competency, or training, to meet the care and treatment of residents, including Mr. Hill;






25








b. Suppressing, concealing and failing to disclose to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff that the acuity and care needs of residents, including Mr. Hill, exceeded the care capability qualification and competence of staff;

c. Suppressing, concealing and failing to disclose to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff that his symptoms were potentially life-threatening, warranting immediate transfer to the hospital;

d. Suppressing, concealing and failing to disclose to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff that Woodland View repeatedly failed to notify Mr. Hill's physician of significant changes in his condition;

e. Suppressing, concealing, and failing to disclose to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff that they were routinely "doctoring" Mr. Hill' medical records and "cooking the books" by falsely representing that Mr. Hill's care was being supervised by a physician; that physician's orders, essential and individualized care plan services were being provided for Mr. Hill when in fact such services were not provided;

f. Suppressing, concealing, and failing to disclose to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff that no policies and procedures were in place to ensure staffing numbers and qualifications were sensitive and responsive to specific needs of residents, including Mr. Hill; and

g. Suppressing, concealing and failing to disclose to William Hill, Plaintiff and the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Defendants continuing "neglect" as such term is defined by OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1902(15) and OKLA. STAT. tit. 43A, § 10-103(11) and "incidents" required to be reported pursuant to OKLA. ADMIN. CODE 310:675-7-5.1.

71. Defendants' concealment, failure to disclose and misrepresentations to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff grew out of their financial motives and a willful attempt to hide three (3) calculated business practices by Defendants:
a. The dangerous and continuing practice of failing to have sufficient nursing personnel, including nurse aides on duty to meet the care needs of the resident population as determined by medical orders and individualized care plans;

b. The relentless practice of recruiting heavier care residents for which the nursing home received higher reimbursements when Woodland View did not have sufficient numbers or qualified nursing personnel and nurse aides to provide the amount and kind of nursing care, personal care and








supervision required to meet the needs of each resident, including Mr.
Hill; and

c. The ongoing practice of retaining and failing to discharge residents in violation of the law whose nursing care and treatments needs could not be met because Woodland View nursing personnel and nurse aides did not have a sufficient amount of time to provide necessary care and treatment and sufficiently qualified staff.

72. Defendants' Failure to Disclose the Material Facts Indnced Inaction: Defendants' failure to disclose material facts induced William Hill and Plaintiff not to remove Mr. Hill from Defendants' nursing home.
73. Fraud by Material Misrepresentations and Partial Disclosures: Alternatively, Plaintiff would plead that Defendants engaged in fraud by making material misrepresentations to Mr. William Hill and Plaintiff or making partial disclosures of information: (a) which representations were false or misleading; (b) which were known by Defendants to be false or were made to Mr. Hill and Plaintiff with reckless disregard for their truth; (c) for the purpose of inducing Mr. Hill and Plaintiff to rely upon the same; (d) and which, in fact, Mr. Hill and Plaintiff relied upon; and, (e) which caused injury to William Hill. In addition to the suppression, concealment and failures to disclose material facts set forth above, Defendants affirmatively represented to William Hill and/or Plaintiff that Woodland View had sufficient staff, who were qualified to provide adequate care to the said William Hill and that they were providing safe and adequate care as prescribed by his physician and determined by his needs. Because of these misrepresentations and omissions, Mr. Hill and Plaintiff were induced to keep Mr. Hill in Woodland View.
74. Proximate Cause: Defendants' ongoing fraudulent suppression, concealment and failure to disclose these material facts and their material consequences, fraud by material misrepresentation and partial disclosure and tortuous breach of fiduciary duty, detailed within

this Count was a proximate cause of Mr. Hill's catastrophic injuries, subsequent complications, damages and death. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such fraud and tortious breach of fiduciary duty was a direct and proximate cause of the damages described more fully below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
COMPENSATORY. ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

75. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-74 as if fully set forth herein.
76. As a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of Defendants as set forth above, Mr. Hill suffered until his premature death on December 24, 2011, mental anguish, pain, suffering, physical injuries, urosepsis, dehydration, pressure sores, infection, extreme physical impairment, and other subsequent complications and injuries. These injuries were also a product of Defendants' aggravation of Mr. Hill's pre-existing condition and subsequent aggravation of medical conditions.
77. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Hill required medical attention and hospitalization, and incurred liability to pay reasonable and necessary charges for such.
78. As a direct, natural and proximate result of the acts or omissions of Defendants as set forth above, Mr. Hill died on December 24, 2011, thereby incurring reasonable and necessary charges for funeral, administration and related expenses.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the previously alleged conduct, all of which was negligent, grossly negligent, willful and wanton, outrageous, reckless, malicious, intentional,


28

e e
an"d/or threatening to human life, Mr. Hill was caused to endure pain, suffering, permanent injury, and death. Indeed, Mr. Hill suffered personal injury including pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, disfigurement, extreme physical impairment, and destruction of dignity until his death.
80. The scope and severity of Defendants' consciously indifferent actions with regard to the welfare and safety of helpless residents such as Mr. Hill constitute gross negligence, willful, wanton, oppressive, reckless, malicious and/or intentional misconduct as such terms are understood in law.
81. Such conduct was undertaken by Defendants without regard to the health and safety consequences to those residents, such as Mr. Hill, entrusted to their care. Moreover, such conduct evidences such little regard for their duties of care, good faith, and fidelity owed to Mr. Hill as to raise a reasonable belief that the acts and omissions by Defendants set forth above were the result of conscious, willful, malicious, and intentional conduct for Mr. Hill's rights and welfare for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.
82. Additionally, due to the consequences of Defendants misconduct, the Wrongful Death Survivor of the Decedent has suffered grief, loss of companionship, attention, guidance, care, protection, training, consortium, cooperation, affection and love. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts a claim for past and future damages arising from such events. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for the full value of the life of the deceased mother, William Hill, and for the mental anguish he and his wife experienced in the past and that she will experience in the future from the catastrophic, permanent, and foreseeably fatal injuries inflicted by Defendants and endured by Mr. Hill. By reason thereof, Plaintiff, in her representative capacity, is entitled to recover against Defendants compensatory, actual and punitive damages based on the foregoing.



•
83. Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendants for all compensatory, actual and

punitive damages which the law allows and which the Court and Jury deem just and fair under the facts of this case, plus cost of suit, and any other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
84. Plaintiff asserts that the amount sought as damages for claims set forth herein are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
PLAINTIFF SEEKS COMPENSATORY, ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO SURVIVAL AND WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTES

85. Survival Claim: Based on the allegations contained in the paragraphs above which are incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff, Darlene Hill, as Special Administrator of the Estate of William Hill, brings a survival claim pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1051 on behalf of the estate for all compensatory, actual and punitive damages which the law allows and which this Court and Jury deem are just and fair under the facts of this case including, but not limited to, Mr. Hill's: a) physical pain and suffering; b) mental pain and suffering; c) physical impairment; d) disfigurement; e) reasonable expenses for necessary medical care, treatment, and services; and, f) punitive damages.
86. Wrongful Death Claim: Based on the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, which are incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff, Darlene Hill, brings a wrongful death claim pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1053 on behalf of all Wrongful Death Survivors of the Decedent for all compensatory, actual and punitive damages which the law allows and which this Court and Jury deem are just and fair under the facts of this case including, but not limited to: a) the pain and suffering of Mr. Hill; b) the grief of the surviving spouse of Mr. Hill; c) the loss of companionship and spousal care, training, guidance, or education that would have been forthcoming from Mr. Hill; and the loss of companionship of the said Mr. Hill; d) the medical



e e
ancl burial expenses; e) the loss of financial support of contributions of money from Mr. Hill; and

f) punitive damages.

CAPS FOUND IN 23 O.S. § 61.2 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB IN/TIO

87. All of the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

88. On November 1, 2011, all civil actions arising from a claimed bodily injury has noneconomic damages "capped" regardless of the true measure of damages suffered. 23 O.S. §
61.2. Under this statute, Plaintiff's noneconomic damages are purportedly caped at $350,000.1

89. 23 O.S. § 61.2 is an unconstitutional deprivation of Plaintiff s constitutionally protected right to trial by jury. Those provisions violate Article II, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, which provides that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. In addition, the subject statutory cap violates Article II, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution which states "the courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice. The subject statutory cap usurps the powers of the Judicial Branch in violation of Article VII, Sections I & 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a declaration, pursuant to 12 O.S.
§ 1651, et. seq., that the statutory caps are void ab initio and of no force and effect.

90. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1653, a copy of this Petition is being served on the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, notifying the State of Oklahoma Attorney General that Plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of 23 O.S. § 61.2.


1 Even if 21 O.S. §61.2 is found to be constitutional, noneconomic damages are not capped in this case because: a) Defendants' conduct caused the death of William Hill and Plaintiff brought a cause of action for wrongful death; and b) there is clear and convincing evidence that Defendants' acts or failures to act were either in reckless disregard for the rights of others, grossly negligent, fraudulent, or intentional or with malice.


31

• PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH 12 O.S. § 19
91. All of the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

92. Plaintiff has complied with 12 O.S. § 19 and has obtained a written report of an expert. The affidavit of Jacques G. Balette is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Darlene Hill, as Special Administrator of the Estate of William Hill, Deceased, and on behalf of all Wrongful Death Survivors of the Decedent, prays for judgment against Defendants SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, PEAK MEDICAL OKLAHOMA NO. 5, INC. D/B/A WOODLAND VIEW CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, PEAK MEDICAL
CORPORATION and MARTIN HUBBARTT as follows:

1. For judgment against all Defendants for actual and compensatory damages for the injuries of William Hill, including but not limited to damages for physical injuries, pain, mental pain and anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment oflife, and expenses for reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of William Hill, all in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332;
2. For judgment against all Defendants for the mental anguish, sorrow and grief, and loss of love, affection, comfort, emotional and pecuniary support, and companionship, consortium and burial expenses;
3. For judgment against all Defendants for punitive damages in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332;




32

4. For judgment against all Defendants for prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs of suit; and
5. For such other relief as may be just and equitable.

Outcome: 08-09-2016 DISPCVDM

CLERKS NOTE: PER PHONE CALL FROM JACQUE BALETTE'S OFFICE, CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND DISMISSAL WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. HEARING 11/30/16 STRICKEN.
1 HUBBARTT, MARTIN
08-09-2016 DISPCVDM

CLERKS NOTE: PER PHONE CALL FROM JACQUE BALETTE'S OFFICE, CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND DISMISSAL WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. HEARING 11/30/16 STRICKEN.
1 PEAK MEDICAL CORPORATION
08-09-2016 DISPCVDM

CLERKS NOTE: PER PHONE CALL FROM JACQUE BALETTE'S OFFICE, CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND DISMISSAL WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. HEARING 11/30/16 STRICKEN.
1 PEAK MEDICAL OKLAHOMA NO 5 INC
08-09-2016 DISPCVDM

CLERKS NOTE: PER PHONE CALL FROM JACQUE BALETTE'S OFFICE, CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND DISMISSAL WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. HEARING 11/30/16 STRICKEN.
1 SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC
08-09-2016 DISPCVDM

CLERKS NOTE: PER PHONE CALL FROM JACQUE BALETTE'S OFFICE, CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND DISMISSAL WILL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. HEARING 11/30/16 STRICKEN.
1 SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: