Oklahoma Injury Lawyer Blog

Recently, an Oklahoma judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Bartlesville Police Department sergeant. In the lawsuit, the sergeant claimed that she was the victim of gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation.   

In the recent ruling, Chief District Judge Gregory Frizzell found that, although Sgt. Elizabeth J. Mitchell was eligible to be promoted to lieutenant, she never achieved a top score during the examination process. In the opinion, judge Frizzell wrote that the test was "a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the lack of promotion."

Mitchell alleged that she was also retaliated against when she was moved to the night shift, however this transfer was not implemented until seven months after she filed her complaint with the EEOC. Judge Frizzell found that Mitchell put fourth no admissible evidence that would tend to support her allegations of a hostile work environment. Similarly, Judge Frizzell found that there were no adverse employment actions taken towards Mitchell.

Mitchell plans to appeal the decision. Of the decision, her lawyer stated, "A subjective promotion process in which a female with 18 years of law enforcement experience, numerous commendations, and a master's degree cannot be promoted past the rank of sergeant, while male employees with less education and less experience receive lieutenant stripes every time there is an opening, is wrong."

When Abercrombie & Fitch declined to hire a woman who wore a headscarf to her interview, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed an employment discrimination lawsuit. Recently, a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, Muslim Halla Banafa was denied a stockroom job at a California Abercrombie Kids store because her headscarf did not fit the look of the store. The store then hired less qualified applicants for its stockroom.

According to a representative for Abercrombie & Fitch, the reason Banafa was not hired was actually because she listed her availability as Friday through Sunday. The federal court disagreed in its ruling, which will allow the case to proceed to trial. In deciding to not dismiss the case, Judge Davila found that the EEOC had offered ample evidence that the decision not to hire Banafa could have been based on her religion.

The most convincing piece of evidence for Judge Davila was the fact that, after turning down Banafa, Abercrombie hired three less qualified applicants. According to Judge Davila, "A reasonable jury considering the evidence suggesting that availability was not typically a hiring consideration and showing that three candidates with lower scores were hired over Ms. Banafa could conclude that Abercrombie's availability justification is a thinly veiled excuse cloaking the true motivation behind its decision not to hire Ms. Banafa."

As reported in Oklahoma's Own, a former teacher was fired from his job after handing a Bible to one of his students. Walk Tutka has now filed a wrongful termination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the school district that terminated him.

Substitute teacher Tutka claims that he quoted a Bible passage in school. A student later asked him where the quote was from, and Tutka informed him that it was from the Bible. Tutka then handed the student his pocket-sized copy of the Bible. According to Tutka, "This occurred several times, I looked at him and said, 'Listen, this is my personal copy. I want to gift it to you.'"

School officials determined that the action was a direct violation of a district policy that prohibits the distribution of religious materials. The school board then voted to have Tutka terminated for the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year.

Tutka's wrongful termination complaint alleges that he was the victim of religious discrimination. He hopes that the school district will exonerate him from wrongdoing, reinstate him as a substitute teacher, and apologize "for all this craziness." The school district will likely base their argument on the separation of church and state.

Recently, an Oklahoma woman filed a lawsuit against Zoloft in a federal court in Philadelphia. Her lawsuit, which is based on products liability, claims that the popular antidepressant caused serious birth defects to her child.

More specifically, Torrie Johnson alleges that the injection of Zoloft while she was pregnant caused her unborn son to suffer from various birth defects including "congenital endocrinal cushion defect, a heart murmur, congestive heart failure, failure to thrive and a general developmental delay." 

Zoloft is prescribed to treat conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression. The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer actually encouraged doctors to prescribe Zoloft to pregnant women, as well as those who are trying to conceive. Johnson alleges that Zoloft maker Pfizer was negligent in failing to warn that if pregnant woman inject Zoloft, congenital defects may occur in their fetuses. She further alleges that Zoloft was negligently and intentionally designed, manufactured, and distributed.

 

Pfizer never performed studies on the drug to determine whether it could be linked to birth defects. According to the complaint, "Had Pfizer engaged in appropriate pharmacovigilance, they would have been aware of the numerous cases of birth defects caused by Zoloft prior to the time Plaintiff was prescribed Zoloft."

Shirley Rice was injured on two separate occasions in 2010 when she tripped and fell on the cracks in a sidewalk. Not long after, she filed suit. According to a recent article, Rice was given $7,500 to settle her claim against the city of Saginaw.

Rice initially filed her complaint on March 15, 2013. The complaint stated that, "As a result of a defect in the sidewalk," Rice suffered serious injuries. The complaint states that the city is to blame for her injuries because it failed to exercise proper care and maintenance on the portion of the sidewalk which she fell on.

Rice had initially asked for a settlement of $25,000. Court records indicate that there was a case evaluation held on February 7, 2013. Shortly thereafter, attorneys for the city of Saginaw approved a settlement amount of $7,500 for Rice. In exchange for that amount, Rice agreed to drop the lawsuit.

This is not the first premises liability lawsuit that Rice has filed. Previously, she filed suit against the Michigan and United States Department of Transportation over weed cutting in her neighborhood. In that lawsuit, Rice claimed that weed cutting is ignored in neighborhoods that have a higher concentration of black residents than white residents. Rice has filed several other, similar lawsuits.

The Manda Packing Company has recently recalled nearly 500,000 pounds of meat. Recent reports indicate that the recall is due to a possible contamination from Listeria monocytogenes.

Although there have been no reported cases of illness stemming from the potentially contaminated meat, Listeria is a very serious infection. Anyone who believes they may have purchased meat from the Manda Packing Company should be sure to check their refrigerators and freezers for contaminated products.

Meats involved in the recall include roast beef, ham, turkey breast, tasso pork, ham shanks, hog headcheese, corned beef, and pastrami. Potentially contaminated meats have a sell by date between May 13 and June 9, 2013, as well as an establishment number of "EST. 8746A." A full list of recalled products, provided by the USDA, is available online.

This recall has proved problematic, because many of the meats involved in the recall were sold at deli counters, were customers do not receive the sell by date and establishment number of a product after they make a purchase. If you have any questions concerning the recall, call Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety Josh Yarborough at (225) 344-7636, ext. 59.

When Aavery Ross was riding his bike recently, a black Mercedes struck him. In an interesting turn of events, the driver gave Ross fifty dollars before fleeing the scene. As reported in Oklahoma's Own, Ross is now on the hunt for the driver of the black Mercedes.

According to Ross, he saw the Mercedes coming and yelled "stop, stop, stop, bicycle." The Mercedes did not stop, instead colliding with Ross and knocking him to the ground. Ross then remembers the driver of the Mercedes parking his vehicle to check on him.

As Ross explained, "I was kind of banged up and he was speaking blasphemy, like G.D.,
G.D. He's like 'do think 50 bucks will fix it?' I said 'I don't know,' so he just gave me 50 bucks and said 'are you sure you're alright?' I said, 'I don't know, I don't know.'"

Ross, who was too shook up to get any information from the driver, was stunned when the driver simply left the scene of the accident. Ross was later taken to the hospital and treated for a hematoma. Today, Ross stands at the intersection near where the accident occurred, watching for the black Mercedes. According to police, although the driver stopped, his actions were still illegal because he did not exchange information with Ross.

When Voss Lighting refused to hire Edward Wolfe at its Tulsa, Oklahoma location, Wolfe suspected the refusal was based on his religious beliefs. Not long after, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") sued the Lincoln company based on the allegations.

Recent reports indicate that the lawsuit has now settled for $82,500. Along with paying Wolfe the monetary settlement, Voss Lighting will also be required to "institute companywide actions to prevent further religious discrimination."

According to court documents, the job opening was initially advertised at a Tulsa Baptist church. Wolfe, who did not attend that church, later learned of the opening and applied. During the initial interview, Wolfe claims that the interviewer asked him numerous questions about his religious beliefs. He was asked questions including where he goes to church, were he was "saved" and whether he would attend a Bible study group at work.

According to attorney for EEOC Barbara A. Seely, "The evidence in this case suggested widespread religious discrimination throughout the company, not just its Oklahoma locations. "The EEOC is optimistic that the corporate-wide remedial actions agreed to by Voss Lighting will put an end to the role religion plays in its decisions affecting applicants and employees. If not, we will be back in court again."

A vicious dog attack has put two north Tulsa women in the hospital. As Oklahoma's Own reports, the owner of the dog that committed the attacks has already been ticketed, and may be held liable for the injuries the pair sustained.

The victims of the attack were Beverly Wright, 43, and Irene Parker, 78. The women are currently in fair and serious condition, respectively. The pit bull who attacked them was shot to death by a neighbor who heard the pair's screams.

The owner of the pit bull will receive at least two citations, one for having an unneutered dog inside city limits, and another for not registering the dog. It is still unclear, however, whether the owner will be held liable for the attack.

Dog bite cases such as this hinge on strict liability. In this case, the two women had knocked on the man's door. The man opened the door and the dog ran past him to attack. Because the victims were lawfully at the front door, and the dog presumably attacked them without first being provoked, the owner may be held liable. Dog owners should be sure to take extra safety precautions with dog breeds that are prone to be vicious. For example, had the owner of the dog been aware of the possibility of the dog attacking visitors, the owner should have put him in another room before opening the door.

Recently, an independent medical panel has found that the medical staff for the San Diego Chargers did not commit medical malpractice in handling a concussion suffered by Kris Dielman. Dielman suffered a concussion in 2011, after being knocked to the ground in a helmet-to-helmet collision that occurred in a game against the New York Jets.

After the collision, Dielman continued to play in the game. Medical staff for the San Diego Chargers did not diagnose him with a concussion until after the game had concluded. While he was on the plane back to San Diego after the game, Dielman suffered from a grand mal seizure. He would never return to the football field.

Last year, a joint committee of the NFL and NFL players union requested an investigation into the incident. The investigation also looked into Chargers team doctor David Chao, who had previously been the subject of several medical malpractice complaints.

The panel's investigation concluded that "Mr. Dielman's care from the moment his concussion was diagnosed was appropriate and consistent with the standard of care. The subsequent seizure, an extremely rare event, suffered by Mr. Dielman during the plane's descent into San Diego could not have been foreseen nor prevented."

In August of 2011, two teen employees of Oklahoma's Zaloudek Grain CO. suffered horrific injuries when they fell into the floor auger of the grain elevator and each lost a leg. Their parents filed lawsuits against the company and its shareholders, which alleges five counts of negligence.

The grain company planned to defend in the lawsuit by claiming that the teens' injuries were caused by their own negligence, as well as the negligence of others. The families of the two boys, Tyler Zander and Bryce Gannon, then filed a motion asking the court to block the company's use of this defense. In a hearing that lasted approximately four minutes, the court sustained he motion.

According to the court, "The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is sustained . . . The defendant may not plead or prove as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, or that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee. As a matter of law, defendants are not entitled to rely on such affirmative defenses."

The parties were also informed that the case would require mediation, and asked that it be scheduled in May.

So, why is this in the news?

Zaloudek Grain also is waging its own lawsuit against workers' compensation provider CompSource Oklahoma, which refused to cover the teens' injuries because it had canceled Zaloudek Grain's policy months earlier for failing to provide information needed for audit.

After Karen Bartlett took a mild pain pill to treat pain in her shoulder, she developed a rare reaction to the drug, sulindac, which caused two-thirds of her skin to slough off. Bartlett had to spend two months in a hospital burn unit, and was even placed under a medically induced coma.

Bartlett later sued the company that manufactured the generic pill she took, Mutual Pharmaceutical Company. In her lawsuit, she claimed that the design of sulindac was dangerous and defective. When describing her experience at trial, her surgeon said Bartlett experienced "hell on earth."

The Supreme Court is now set to hear a case considering whether Mutual can in fact be held responsible for the injuries suffered by Bartlett. In a decision handed down two years ago, the Supreme Court found that consumers of generic drugs could sue their manufacturers only in limited circumstances. The court came to this conclusion after finding that "such companies did not have control over what warning labels said and therefore could not be sued for not alerting patients to the risks of taking their drugs."

Bartlett's case is different, however, because she is arguing that the drug itself is defective. Mutual argues that, because the company has no control over the drug's design, they cannot be held liable for its defects.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recently ruled that Oklahomans have a constitutional right to sue jails when they believe that excessive force was used against them. The ruling may have a large impact on county jails, as well as Oklahoman taxpayers.

The decision came on the heels of a video released from the Cherokee County Jail. In the video, guards attacked and severely injured handcuffed prisoner Daniel Bosh. The video, which was viewed by millions, shows the guards slamming Bosh's head into a counter and then knocking him onto the ground.

Bosh later filed a lawsuit against the guards, as well as the jail. At the time, Oklahoma statutes protected jails from such lawsuits. According to Bosh's attorney, "These people were protected by something the legislature had put in called the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, which had provided immunity for certain people doing certain actions, as long as they were acting within their job."

The Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling applies to those who are in jail but have not been convicted for a crime. It may be applied retroactively to those lawsuits that were filed after Bosh initially filed his in 2011.

A judge has recently ruled that a service dog that bit a woman multiple times will be euthanized. The euthanization is currently pending appeal.

The dog, named Dutch, is an American Allaunt. This type of dog is typically bred for guarding and hunting. Before the attack, Dutch was training to be a service dog in Oklahoma. Dutch currently assists his owner, Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran Jeremiah Aguilar, in dealing with his PTSD.

The victim of the attack was Dutch's previous owner, who agreed to watch Dutch while Aguilar was out of town. The attack occurred after the victim found Dutch fighting with a Pit Bull. She struck Dutch in an attempt to free the Pit Bull. After she freed Dutch and brought him inside the house, the dog attacked her. She did not call the police or emergency workers because she feared the dog would attack them as well.

Aguilar does not believe the dog is vicious, stating, "If I thought he was vicious for one second, it would already be done . . . I would have taken what punishment I was to get. But it's just wrong because he's not vicious. He's a family dog. He loves everybody. He's friendly, he's kind and he doesn't have a vicious bone in him."

After 6-year-old Oklahoman boy who was injected with Botox ended up on a ventilator, his mother sued Botox manufacturer, Allergan Inc. Shortly after the trial began, however, Allergan and the boy's mother reached a settlement agreement.

The boy was injected with Botox to treat spasticity in his legs. According to his attorneys, he developed acute botulism as a result of the injections. As a result of the botulism, he lost the ability to breathe on his own and was placed on a ventilator. The boy's attorneys argued that Allergan marketed the drug as safe for this use, although it lacked the proper regulatory approval.

The lawsuit, which began on February 19, 2013, settled shortly after the boy's treating doctor testified. According to U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron, "While the amount is confidential, young Jackson Wells will be well taken care of for life." Judge Cauthron then closed the case in a one-page order. Spokespeople for Allergan have declined comment on the settlement.

Allergan raked in over $1.7 billion in sales of Botox, its most popular product. According to Allergan's earnings statement, profits generated by Botox are divided equally between medical uses and treatment for wrinkles. In 2013, Allergan anticipates to top $2 billion in sales.