ial fic Un of C s D ist ric t C ler k es rg Bu n ily ar M of e ffic O op y 2019-02726 / Court: 334 Defendants to disclose, within ?fty (5 0) days of service of this request, the information and material described in Rule 194.2 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Plaintiff specifically requests the responding party to produce responsive documents at the undersigned law offices within ?fty (50) days of service of this request. 7 $6 111. JURISDICTION AND VENUE C) 3. Plaintiff af?rmatively pleads that this Court has jurisdiction becaigg?gfe damages sought are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. Further all of the causes of action asserted in this case arose in the State of Texas, and all of t@rties to this action are either residents of the State of Texas or conduct business in this @e in connection with the causes of action embraced by the claims in this lawsuit. Theref@ this Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over all of the parties and awe claims. 4. Venue is proper in Harris County, @der the general venue statute of TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE 15 .002(a)(1)(2)(3)(West because Harris County is the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or giving rise to the claim occurred. Venue is also proper in Harris County since one or n@ of the defendants reside in, practice medicine in, or have their principal place of business@ of?ce in Harris County, Texas. w. o@ PARTIES 0 5. Plaintif?> NALD COLEMAN, is a resident of Harris County, Texas. 6. may be served with process by the clerk of this court by mailing a copy of the citation, @Qhe petition attached, via certified mail, to Baylor St. Luke?s Medical Center, 6770 Bertner Avenue, C355A, Houston, Texas 7703 0, or wherever he may be found. 11. To the extent that any of the above-named Defendants are conducting business pursuant to a trade name or assumed name, then suit is brought against them pursuant to the terms of Rule 28 3 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and Plaintiffs hereby demand that upon answering this suit, that they answer in their correct legal name and assumed name. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. great civilization is not conquered from without until it has itself from within.? Ariel Durant. To fully understand the gravity of the claims invol@ in this case that nearly cost Plaintiff, Ronald Coleman, his life, a brief history of the @Qnd fall of one of the nation?s top transplant programs is necessary. Like so many that vbefore him, Mr. Coleman was ecstatic when a new heart had become available for him in @gaber of 2016. Mr. Coleman had spent the previous two years living with the use of a Left V??cular Assist Device an implantable device used to pick up the slack of an aihn_eart by pumping blood throughout the body Adding to Mr. Coleman 5 excitement his heart transplant would be performed at Baylor St. Luke Medical Center (?St a joint venture equally owned by BCOM and St Luke? 5 Health System Corporation a squiary of Catholic Health Initiatives, one of the nation?s largest healthcare systems. For @ears, the St. Luke?s transplant program, originally led by legendary surgeon, Dr. Dentggoley, and later his protege Dr. 0. H. Bud Frazier, was world renown. 13. Mr. Colemagd been a patient at St. Luke?s previously. He had seen the advertising by St. Luke? whe told the public about the hospital?s world renown transplant program and its and succe? upper abdominal wall along the expected course of the previously removed LVAD driv The following day, Mr. Coleman was seen by Dr. Bergert, who noted that Mr. Colem? white blood cell count had gone up to 54,000, his chest tube drainage contained thic?rownish ?uid, and multiple organisms were growing within his chest tube and his body. @?@ergert also indicated that a ?portion of drive line appears to have been left in abd wall 25. xt sequence of events is important to understand to fully grasp the actions of Dr. Morgan and his care and treatment of Mr. Coleman. On November 13, 2016, Mr. Coleman was set to undergo an additional re-eXploration of his chest. According to the anesthesia records, the 10 procedure began on November 13, 2016 at 1211 hours. Dr. Morgan was the surgeon performing the exploration. The only people present during this procedure were Dr. Morgan, Dr. Masahiro Ono as the first assistant, and Dr. Farooq Mirza, a resident and second assistant. Dr. Morgan once again reopened the previous incision and placed a chest retractor. This time howev%Dr. Morgan discovered the reason why Mr. Coleman had become septic and why his hea?d dramatically declined his transverse colon had been perforated. A general surgeonO @Ed Dr. George Van Buren was called to perform a colon resection. When Dr. Van Buxl'g?shrrived to the OR, Mr. Coleman?s chest and diaphragm were already open. Of note, Dr% Buren discovered that Mr. Coleman?s transverse colon had been ?pexied and sutured t? diaphragmatic closure.? In other words, Dr. Morgan had stitched Mr. Coleman?s colon%??s diaphragm when he was attempting to suture the diaphragm closed during the heart @plant procedure. Similar to the previous patients who had their arteries sown shut, Dr. an had once again displayed his lack of skill in suturing Mr. Coleman?s colon to his diaphirggm. As Dr. Van Buren continued to dissect the colon away from the diaphragm, he notice@@full-thickness opening of the colon which was draining into an abscess cavity.? Dr. Van xhad to resect the perforated portion of Mr. Coleman 3 colon, as well as the area of colon @unding the perforation which had become signi?cantly in?amed. 26. Neither Dr. Mogajh?s operative report, nor Dr. Van Buren?s operative report, make any mention of the fag ?body which had been identi?ed during the November 12, 2016 CT scan Upon 1nforma$ and belief, Dr Morgan removed the foreign body prior to Dr Van Buren entering t?perating room, and failed to record it in his operative note, or send it to pathology. 27. Even after Mr. Coleman?s colon had been repaired, his prognosis was poor. He continued to suffer from infection that had now spread to his chest wound. He required placement of a wound 11 vac and several washouts in an attempt to treat his ongoing infection. He remained in the hospital until January 10, 2017. 28. When this case is tried, the evidence will show that Dr. Morgan breached the standard of care with respect to his care and treatment of Plaintiff; Dr. Morgan was negligenti?jhis care and treatment of Plaintiff; and that such breach of the standard of care and h1igence was a proximate and/or medical cause of Plaintiff?s resulting injuries and da 0 Morgan breached the standard of care for a cardiothoracic Mr. Coleman?s . Speci?cally, Dr. colon to his diaphragm, causing a perforation of the colon. This @ration allowed fecal matter to ?ow into Mr. Coleman? 3 abdomen and chest tube, leading @ection, sepsis, and nearly costing Mr. Coleman his life. Additionally, Dr. Morgan breac@e standard of care for a cardiothoracic surgeon in failing to recognize Mr. Coleman?s colo?rforation in a timely manner. Despite clear ca?he fact that his white blood cell count continued signs that Mr. Coleman had a bowel issue, sue to skyrocket, his kidneys were failing, g?est tube contained ?feculent? matter as early as November 8, 2016, and his severe is, Dr. Morgan did not discover the perforation until November 13, 2016. This failur? ecognize the perforation becomes even more troubling given the fact that Dr. Morgan pe?1ed an exploration on November 9, 2016, but instead of doing a thorough exploration, @organ simply evacuated and cultured ?uid. Further, in all reasonable medical probabilitf?@ Morgan failed to remove all of the drive line of Mr. Coleman?s LVAD when he perfo xthe heart transplant procedure on October 31, 2016. This was a clear deviation of the sta?i?rd of care for a cardiothoracic surgeon and an additional medical cause of Mr. Coleman?s ongoing infection. When this case is tried, the evidence will show that despite the fact that this foreign body was identi?ed by a CT scan on November 12, 2016, there is no further 12 mention of the foreign body in Mr. Coleman?s chart, when it was removed, nor what it was. The evidence will further show that Dr. Morgan was the first person to open Mr. Coleman?s chest after the foreign body had been identi?ed and that reasonable jurors could believe that Dr. Morgan removed the foreign body and deliberately attempted to conceal his breach of thet ward of care of leaving the foreign body in Mr Coleman to begin with 29. In addition to the negligence by Dr Morgan when this case is tried