MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Friday, November 20, 2009 | WIRELESS CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBER SERVICES | SIGN IN SIGN OUT | MY PROFILE PAGE | MY ACCOUNT

Home > News > Article

Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

Supreme Court won't hear Oklahoma case with conflict question
 
By Associated Press
Published: 11/9/2009  10:13 AM
Last Modified: 11/9/2009  10:13 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will not review an $18 million verdict won by a lawyer who served as a co-chairman of the trial judge's re-election committee.

The court on Monday turned down a hospital's appeal in a case involving an infant who was seriously injured when a nurse hit his head on a night stand and then did not report the incident or seek treatment.

Brittany and Brandon Shinn successfully sued after their infant son, Nathan, suffered multiple skull fractures and a hematoma in the incident at Oklahoma Children's Hospital.

Nathan Shinn died on December 14, 2006, shortly after the jury verdict against HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, doing business as Children's Hospital at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center.

During the trial, HCA demanded that Oklahoma County District Judge Barbara Swinton recuse herself because Gerald Durbin, the Shinns' lawyer, served as a co-chairman of the trial judge's re-election committee.

Swinton was running unopposed. She said at trial that Durbin was only a formal co-chair and her husband was the person really running her re-election committee. She rejected the request to step aside, saying since she was running unopposed, there was no re-election campaign.

HCA unsuccessfully appealed Swinton's decision to preside during the trial, but did not make the issue part of its state court appeal after the $18 million verdict was handed down.

HCA said the Supreme Court should review the case, considering the court said in June that elected
judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. Durbin contributed $1,000 to her campaign, but got $719.77 refunded because she was unopposed.

But the Shinns said the court should not get involved since HCA did not make the recusal question part of its state appeals.

The case is HCA Health Services of Oklahoma v. Shinn, 09-311.
By Associated Press

Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

Reader Comments
       Add your comment

10 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Report Comment Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you.  -- Web Editor Jason Collington
 
 
Report Comment
Lance-a-lot, Tulsa (11/9/2009 10:35:44 AM)
Nope, not this one. This is not "frivilous" ... maybe not woth $18 million, but I would probably be doing the same thing if I was in the Shinn's place. You can't put a price tag on your own child. The nurse was obviously negligent here.

However, what I WOULD like to see abolished through meaningful tort reform are the truly frivilous cases. You know, the one where the 400lb. alcoholic / diabetic that loses his leg because of his condition sues the doctor for "malpractice". Like the doctor could actually DO something about the condition.

Sometimes, people get very sick, sometimes bad things happen, sometimes people DIE. It is not always (almost never, in fact) the fault of the doctor. The doctor is TRYING to fix you / save your life. The doctor did NOT cause you to get in the condition you are in.

When patients families start bringing in cameras and tape recorders and record the names of everyone who enters the room...you KNOW they are planning a get rich quick scheme. They can smell the money, and are looking for an excuse to sue.

Quit being so sue happy you freaking people!
Report Comment
FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/9/2009 10:47:09 PM)
No harm no foul. Time to pay up.
Report Comment
myownguy, Tulsa (11/9/2009 3:04:23 PM)
The lawyers win again!!!
Report Comment
Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/10/2009 9:14:10 AM)
This is the exact kind of case "tort reform" is meant to affect. Remember, its sole purpose is to eliminate or severely limit recovery in catastrophic injuries of obvious negligence. In Texas the plaintiff would have recovered only $350,000.00, if that. The term "frivolous" is sujective and there is no way in the world to sort out cases you personally don't believe should be filed from what an aggrieved party believes has caused them harm.Hobbs....a hospital employee IS the hospital.
Report Comment
Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 8:57:01 AM)
Would it have been a stronger case if the Judge had had an opponent? It's horrible case of negligence but is 18 million over the top? I think so, in light of how it occurred, I don't believe the Hospital had a lot of control over what the employee did. Unless of course their were circumstances we aren't aware of.
Report Comment
Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 9:39:55 AM)
Ignatz...I agree with you and I strongly believe that putting a cap like Texas is way out of line. My belief is that the Hospital did something to cause that size award...in addition to the horrible thing the employee did.

Remember the McDonald award for the ladies hot coffee the right always uses as a reason for tort reform..McDonalds had been warned twice about their coffee being 185' They right seems to always leave that out of the argument. Might be something like that in this case for an award of 18 million.
Report Comment
Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 2:53:12 PM)
Dusty...You keep on alienating the right.

I too agree with you on the award of 18M for the child was entirely too much. I agree with your solution and what should have bee awarded I don't know where the line should be drawn but it sure isn't and 350k like in Texas.

But when there is negligence on the scale of Ford's Pinto blowing up and you have and you have willfully ignoring negligent products or denying contracts...they need to pay out the nose. That's why I'm not for tort reform. Would you agree to some tweaking?
Report Comment
dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/10/2009 9:47:58 AM)
Well I've alienated all the right wingers, might as well go ahead and alienate my liberal buddies.

I am for tort reform. There is a reasonable limit to the amount of money someone should get.

As terrible as I think this case is, the truth is that child will not be brought back by an 18 million dollar settlement. And the Hospital won't be "punished" more severely for that neglect.

YOU and I will. In the form of higher medical malpractice rates. Which we pay for.

Had I of been on that jury the parents would have received relief from all related bills, funeral expenses,lawyer fees and a million dollars in addition as a cap on real and punitive damages.

I just don't understand the left's willingness to penalize society as a whole for the acts of a few.
Report Comment
Elusive, the burbs (11/9/2009 11:31:27 PM)
That is so sad what they did to this child. This is what concerns me about tort reform although I do think the amount was excessive. Had the child lived and had disabilities his entire life a large judgement is needed.
Report Comment
Loophole, (11/9/2009 10:19:22 AM)
Guess this was one of those "frivolous" medical cases everybody seems to be trying to abolish with "caps" and "reforms."
 

 
Add Your Comment 
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.

 
  
Post Your Comment
 


Most Popular Stories
Comments made yesterday 1,932
Total Comments 895,813
Register to make reader comments

Most Popular Stories




Tulsa World

Home | About Tulsa World | Advertise With Us | Privacy | Usage Agreement | FAQ and Help | Contact Us | Today's Headlines
Copyright © 2009, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.




Advanced Search