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 2019-02842 / Court: 269 Texas. 3. Defendant, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE is a domestic nonpro?t corporation duly existing and operating pursuant to law as Baylor College of Medicine at 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030. BCM may be served wit 'tation by serving its registered agent James Banfield at 1 Baylor Plaza, Suite 106a, ?ton, Texas 0 4. Defendant, BAYLOR ST. MEDICAL CENTg?vls a hospital duly 77030, or wherever he may be found. $9 ex1st1ng and operating pursuant to law With its pnnc1pal of bus1ness in Harris, County, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citati@@cgy serving its President, Gay Nord, at 6720 Bertner Ave, Houston, Texas 7703 @erever she may be found. 5. Defendant, CHI ST. COLLEGE OF MEDICINE MEDICAL CENTER is a hospital duly eig??g and operating pursuant to law with its principal place of business in Harris gg y, Texas. This Defendant may be served with citation by serving its registered @ng Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, or may be found. 6. Defendant, ST. HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, is a domestic entity and to law with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. This Defgg?ant may be served with citation by serving its registered agent CT Corporatiomgg?gygem, 1999 Bryan St, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever it may be fou? 7. To the extent that 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 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff hereby demands that upon Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 2 of 15 answering this suit, Defendants answer in their correct legal name and assumed name. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Plaintiff cites to and fully incorporate herein the facts set forth in Sections 11, IV, and of this pleading. $2 9. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that this Court has jurisdiction beca? the damages sought are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Cox rthermore, all of the causes of action asserted in this case arose in the State of @and all of the parties to this action are either residents of the State of Texas or co business in this State and committed the torts that are the subject of this suit in @r in part in Texas, as hereafter alleged in more detail. Furthermore, one or more onAQDefendants is a resident of the State of Texas and there is not complete diversity @enship. Therefore, this Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction $11 of the parties and all of the claims. 10. Venue is proper in Harris Co??sy, Texas under the general venue statute of TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE (West 2012) because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giv?rise to the claim occurred in Harris County, Texas and no mandatory venue provis?pplies C) v. 0@ FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. On @ht of February 8, 2017, 46-year-old Lazerick Eskridge got the call he had been @g for. Years earlier Mr. Eskridge?s heart was damaged by chemotherapy treatments and after waiting on the heart transplant list for two years, this was the call to tell him that a heart had been found. 12. Like most heart transplant patients, Mr. Eskridge had anxiety about the surgery. Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 3 of 15 However, he knew it was necessary and prayed that he would be ?nally able to play with his kids the way he had always wanted to. He also took comfort in the fact that his surgery was being performed at a legendary institution?Baylor St. Luke?s Medical Center in the Texas Medical Center (?St Luke?s), a joint venture equally owned by Baylor follege of Medicine and St. Luke?s Health System Corporation (also kn??as CHI St. Luke?s Health)? a subsidiary of Catholic Health Initiatives, one of @mation?s largest healthcare systems. Mr. Eskridge had done his research. He kney?piuke?s was world- a renowned. He had heard of the famed surgeons, Dr. Denton? a ey and Dr. O.H. Bud Frazier. He knew St. Luke?s was where groundbreaking had been performed before. He had also seen St. Luke?s, St. Luke?s He @stem Corporation?s, and Baylor College of Medicine?s advertising?touting skill, competency, and unparalleled expertise?working to convince patients th$?a city with several options they were the ones to turn to. Like other patients in tl?e??Lukea heart transplant program, Mr. Eskridge had the opportunity to transfer to worm Hermann when his cardiologist left to start the heart transplant program ther, 0% Mr. Eskridge had been convinced that he was at the best place he could possibly b?>r a heart transplant. 14. Surgery wa@@%uled for the following day. Mr. Eskridge and his wife were greeted before {@137 by Dr. Masahiro Ono who told the Eskridges that he would be performing?ansplant. However, hours later it was Dr. Jeffrey Morgan who met Mrs. Eskric??the waiting room to tell her everything had gone fine. But things were not fine. An hour later a nurse reported to Mrs. Eskridge that her husband had been taken back to surgery and was in critical condition. 15. When Lazerick Eskridge walked into St. Luke? 8 he never could have predicted what Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 4 of 15 was in store. In the end, Mr. Eskridge would remain hospitalized for more than three months. During his hospitalization he would endure numerous surgeries and be forced to ?ght through a number of life-threatening infections and complications which all stemmed from the original transplant. By the time Mr. Eskridge was discharged home, a shell of the man he had been, debilitated from months of being bed ridden an?@ng lost 70 pounds. Furthermore, it can legitimately be said that he left St. in far worse condition than when he came in. His new heart was not functiongn?pxtimally and now he . . had permanent kidney damage which required d1a1y31s. In tion, he had suffered a debilitating injury to his right diaphragm that prevented?@@rom getting a full breath. It would be more than a year before the Eskridges 11% why things had gone so terribly wrong. 16. In April of 2018, the Eskridges meg?hi? a cardiologist who had been present on the night of the transplant, Dr. Joggy Also present that day was a reporter with the Houston Chronicle who was WNW on a ground-breaking report on the failings of St. Luke? heart transplant progra?uring this Visit, Dr. George informed the Eskridges that he was told that a major Vgconnected to the heart must have been stitched through during the transplant causi@@%d to back up into Mr. Eskridge?s head. He explained how Mr. Eskridge?s subg?nt complications could all be explained by this surgical error. The Eskridges 17. ?n confronted with Ms. Eskridge?s case by the Chronicle, Dr. Morgan reportedly claimed that he ?thoroughly explained the situation to the family.? However, the evidence will show that it appears he has been trying to cover up what happened since the night of the surgery. According to the medical records, Dr. Morgan was the primary Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 5 of 15 surgeon for Mr. Eskridge?s transplant. Also listed as the co-primary surgeon is Dr. 0 Howard Frazier. Other records suggest that Dr. Ravi Ghanta was the ?rst assistant. The operative report itself thought was signed by Dr. Morgan and states ?complications: none.? Although it mentions that there was heart dysfunction during the surgery and at a right atrium bypass was required, there is absolutely no mention of any veg sutured closed. In addition, conspicuously and suspiciously absent from Dr?> gan?s operative notes are events that are documented elsewhere. For example, in?xanesthesia records, others present for the surgery documented that ?after raping: head appears swollen. . .Patient reprept,? suggesting that the case wasg/gj?g finished when it had to be restarted. Although Dr. Morgan was unwilling o?sclose what had transpired, the evidence will show that the complications that kaowed ultimately speak for themselves. In addition, other medical teams including Luke?s infectious disease service were repeatedly writing notes like ?an innoam? to RA bypass was performed due to stenosis at the [superior vena cava] anastowis.? The evidence will also show that Mr. Eskridge? prolonged hospitalization of the permanent injuries he suffered can all be traced to this surgical erro%%;s includes damage to his kidneys and damage to the phrenic nerve from poor 3 @Qtechnique which prevents Mr. Eskridge?s lung from in?ating properly and ceg?with it a number of comorbidities. Although the Eskridge?s now had an what occurred, they would feel even more betrayed when they learned that M?kndg?s terrible ordeal was just the tip of the iceberg. 18. On May 16, 2018, The Houston Chronicle and ProPublica published an article highlighting the program?s failings and bringing attention to Mr. Eskridge?s and others? care and search for answers. The journalists found that ?in recent years, the famed program Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 6 of 15 has performed an outsized number of transplants resulting in death or unusual complications, has lost several top physicians, and has scaled back its ambition for treating high-risk patients, all the while marketing itself based on its storied Contrary to the Defendants? marketing materials, the journalists found that ?twice as many?t? Luke?s patients died within a year as would have been expected? and that in @g?rnetric, the program ?ranks near the bottom nationally, according to the most recengspublished data.? They also found that between mid-2016 and mid-2017, the of stay for heart transplant patients was the third longest of 125 programs in ountry. With respect to Dr. Morgan, the journalists uncovered that he was far fr01@xperienced, having served as the lead surgeon in only 18 heart transplants in the ears prior to his hiring as head of St. Luke?s transplant program. They also foun ior lawsuits and examples of several errors, 1nclud1ng sew1ng a major vein shut 1% of his very first surgeries at St. Luke 5 in 0 early 2016.1 19. The journalists spoke to @veral of Dr. Morgan?s colleagues who made it abundantly clear that Dr. M??s errors were both pervasive and widely known. Dr. Roberta Bogaev asked ad?mstrators to commission an external review in late 2016 and 0 stated, ?It becomes @thically challenging to recommend transplant if you don?t have that con?denceolg?l in your surgeon.? Dr. Deborah Meyers, the medical director of the St. Luke? @ailure Program until early 2017 said, had multiple conversations with multipl??ninistrators during my tenure who were unwilling to get an external review to address the problems and unwilling to make substantial changes.? In a letter obtained by 1 Mike Hixenbaug 4 ?p?h?u?w?h'qg q, uqyu ?d 3vnp. Bu) 55.4 like? Us?: {5451: Ram)- Lib: m. {Pm-?Dw' Mimi Auk: at: and Charles Ornstein, Heart Failure, Houston Chronicle (May 16, 2018), 1 ?7 . amok; .1 14-33?) h. Plaintiff? 5 Original Petition Page 7 of 15 CBS News after the Chronicle/ProPublica article was published, Dr. Meyers wrote a letter to St. Luke?s president, Ms. Nord, identifying the root cause of the failings: ?In my opinion the shocking story of the Baylor St. Luke?s CHI transplant program is one of greed, careerisrn, corporate takeovers, appalling administrative oversight, failure of leadership, poor hiring pract'c is, completely avoidable lawsuits, and the inevitable public distortions of underlying mission, all of which have occurred as medicine has me perverted into ?big business.? 9&9 In the era of corporate medicine patient care has been reduc0 St. Luke? 5 as well as patient outcomes with the intent of inducing the public to them for care and treatment. Lazerick Eskridge detrimentally relied on the ?31359, misleading, or deceptive act . or practice and Defendants? false, misleading or de act or practice was a producing cause of the Plaintiff? resulting injuries and dan@es. 27. The Defendants? conduct as de$?ed above was committed knowingly. Defendants were actually aware, at of the conduct, of the falsity, deception, and unfairness of the conduct about @?Hch the Plaintiff complains. As a direct result of Defendants? knowing misco?n Mr. Eskridge suffered mental anguish damages. Accordingly, Defendants ??Qable to Mr. Eskridge for mental anguish damages suffered by Mr. Eskridge a @ional damages of up to three times the amount of economic damages as perorn??d by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. v11. DAMAGES 28. @e above breaches of the standard of care by Defendants were a proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants? conduct set forth above, Plaintiff suffered damages, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Physical pain sustained in the past; Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 12 of 15 b. Physical pain that, in reasonable probability, the Plaintiff will sustain in the future, c. Mental anguish sustained in the past, 01. Mental anguish that in reasonable probability the Plaintiff will sustain in the futurePhys1cal 1mpa1rment sustained in the past; (2 f. Physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, th?aintiff will sustain in the future, and 0@ g. Medical care expenses in the past; h. Medical care expenses that, in reasonabl obability, the Plaintiff will sustain in the future. 29. The wrongful conduct speci?cally alleged ane constitutes both malice and gross negligence as such terms are defined by law?y reason of such willful, malicious, and intentional conduct, Plaintiff is therefore asserts a claim for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to p?1 and deter Defendants and other similar facilities Q) from such conduct in the futureQ- Defendants acted with conscious indifference of Mr. Eskridge?s rights, safety, he@, and welfare. 30. The Defendants? 6%%Jct as alleged in this petition was also committed knowingly and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Under the Texas Deceptive Kfactices Act, the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the mental anguish damages a$dditional damages of up to three times the amount of economic damages. 31. Defendants? conduct as alleged in this petition and the resulting damage and loss to the Plaintiff has also necessitated Plaintiff? retention of the attorneys whose names are subscribed to this petition. Under the laws and statutes of the state of Texas, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant an additional sum to compensate Plaintiff for a Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 13 of 15 reasonable fee for such attorney?s necessary services in the preparation and prosecution of this action as well as a reasonable fee for any appeals. 32. The damages pled exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court. DISCOVERY REQUESTS 33. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, @?iff requests Defendants to disclose, within ?fty (50) days of service of this information and material described in Rule 194.2(a) through (1) of the Texas Civil Procedure. IX. 6% NOTICE 34. Plaintiff provided one or more Defendant