Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DALLAS COUNTY
8/21/2015 6:34:08 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DC-15-09647
CAUSE NO. ___________
JEFFREY GLIDEWELL AND ROBIN
GLIDEWELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
Freeney Anita
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JEFFREY
GLIDEWELL
and
ROBIN
GLIDEWELL
(Plaintiffs),
each
Page 1
Page 2
(1) Mary Efurd et al. v. Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D., et al., No. DC-13-07074, 193rd
Judicial District Court (originally filed June 25, 2013);
(2) Kenneth Fennell, et ux. v. Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D., et al., No. DC-13-13512,
193rd Judicial District Court (originally filed November 13, 2013);
(3) Jeffrey Cheney, et ux. v. Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D., et al., No. DC-14-09915,
193rd Judicial District Court (originally filed September 5, 2014);
(4) Marshall Muse v. Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D., et al., No. DC-14-14460, 193rd
Judicial District Court (originally filed December 12, 2014); and
(5) Jacqueline Troy, et al. v. Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D., et al, No. DC-14-14466,
193rd Judicial District Court (originally filed December 12, 2014).
V.
COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 74,
TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE
Defendants have previously been served with pre-suit notice and authorization more
than sixty (60) days before the filing of this suit as required by Section 74.051 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code.
VI.
FACTS
On June 10, 2013, Dr. Duntsch performed surgery on Plaintiff Jeffrey Glidewell. When
Duntsch consulted with Mr. Glidewell, he told him that he could fix his problems by doing a
single level fusion at level C6/7. Dr. Duntsch bragged to him about his education, training, and
that he was the best minimally invasive spine doctor in the state of Texas. He told Glidewell
that he was his insurance companys preferred surgeon for minimally invasive spine surgery in
the state. He took an MRI of Glidewells back performed based on another doctors orders and
showed him the problem areas.
After looking at an MRI performed the day of the surgery Dr. Duntsch told Mr. Glidewell
that he needed a two level fusion instead of just one at both C5/6 and C6/7. Duntsch took Mr.
Glidewell to the operating room where he attempted a C5C6/C6C7 ACDF. According to his
Page 3
operative report, he aborted the surgery after encountering abnormal tissue that was thick and
vascular.
When he awoke in recovery, Mr. Glidewell experienced significant pain. His left arm was
paralyzed and he could not speak.
complications in his surgery. Instead, Dr. Duntsch claimed that Mr. Glidewell had a tumor that
he encountered during the surgery. Further testing revealed Duntsch had left a sponge in Mr.
Glidewells neck, which became infected.
As a result of the surgery performed on him By Duntsch, Mr. Glidewell suffered a
cervical esophageal perforation, a cervical upper mediastinal abscess, an injury result in a filling
defect of the left vertebral artery at C6-7, and a neck abscess. Mr. Glidewell continues to suffer
with chronic cervical pain, cervical spondylosis, a permanent esophageal injury, and permanent
nerve damage.
VII.
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER D. DUNTSCH, M.D. AND
TEXAS NEUROSURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.A.
A.
Duntsch, M.D., individually and/or by and through his agents, employees, vice principals,
servants, and/or borrowed servants, failed to exercise that degree of care that a physician of
ordinary prudent would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Such failure
on the part of Defendant Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D. constitutes negligence, meaning the
failure to use ordinary care in failing to do that which a physician of ordinary prudence would
have done under the same or similar circumstances or doing that which a physician of ordinary
prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. The negligence of
Defendant Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D. was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question
Page 4
and the damages which the Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell have sustained and which
they will continue to sustain, in reasonable probability, beyond the trial of this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell would show the acts and/or omissions of
Defendant Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D. constituted deviations from the applicable standards of
care in numerous respects including, but not limited to:
a.
b.
Failing to create a treatment plan to address the Mr. Glidewells critically relevant
pathology;
c.
Failing to choose the most appropriate surgical procedure for Mr. Glidewell;
d.
e.
Failing to possess the appropriate skills and competence to perform the surgical
procedure on Mr. Glidewell safely;
f.
Failing to possess the skills to identify the patients anatomy in the operative field;
g.
h.
i.
j.
Failing to adequately
complications;
k.
Failing to immediately identify the retained sponge that was evident on the early
post-operative chest x-ray;
l.
Failing to recognize the esophageal injury that he caused Mr. Glidewell; and
m.
manage
Mr.
Glidewells
post-operative
severe
Page 5
The above described acts and/or omissions by Defendant Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D.
were singularly and/or severally the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and resulted
in injuries and damages to Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell.
B.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Pleading further, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell adopt and incorporate paragraphs
I-VI herein and state that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D.
cared for Jeffrey Glidewell and was employed by Defendant Texas Neurosurgical Institute, P.A.
and was acting as an employee, servant, apparent or ostensible agent within the course and
scope of his agency or employment with this entity, making the entity liable for the acts and
omissions of Christopher D. Duntsch, M.D. under the theory of respondent superior or actual,
apparent or ostensible agency.
VIII.
DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFFS
As a proximate result of the acts or omissions described above, singularly and
collectively, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Glidewell and Robin Glidewell have been injured, sustained
damages, and request compensation in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits
of this Court. Each and all of the violations of the standard of care, fraud, statutory violations,
and other causes of action outlined herein were a proximate cause and/or substantial factor of
damage, injury, and harm to Plaintiffs Jeffrey Glidewell and Robin Glidewell.
Plaintiffs specifically seek an award of damages for past and future medical and
healthcare expenses; past and future physical pain; past and future mental anguish; past and
future disfigurement; and past and future physical impairment; exemplary damages; prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest; costs of court; and such other and further relief to
which they may be entitled.
Page 6
Plaintiff Robin Glidewell would show that as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct of Defendants, she has sustained a loss of the affection, solace, comfort,
companionship, society, assistance, and household services that she previously received from
her spouse, Jeffrey Glidewell, all to her damage in a sum far in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
IX.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Because Defendants conduct as alleged above constitutes gross negligence and
malice, Plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
course of conduct justifies and indeed requires the imposition of exemplary/punitive damages
against Defendants to punish and discourage Defendants and other similarly situated
Defendants from this type of egregious conduct.
X.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER
FOR THESE REASONS, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell respectfully pray that
upon final hearing hereof, Plaintiffs receive judgment from the Defendants for actual and
exemplary damages sought herein; costs of court; prejudgment interest at the highest rate
allowed by law; interest on the judgment at the highest legal rate from the date of judgment until
collected; and any and all such other and further relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs
may show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
VAN WEY LAW, PLLC
By: /s/ Kay L. Van Wey
KAY L. VAN W EY
State Bar No. 20461950
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
Page 7
Page 8