You are on page 1of 8

FILED

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.

CHRISTOPHER D. DUNTSCH, M.D.; AND

TEXAS NEUROSURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.A.

Defendants.

Freeney Anita
IN THE DISTRICT COURT

___ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs

JEFFREY

GLIDEWELL

and

ROBIN

GLIDEWELL

(Plaintiffs),

each

individually, file this petition complaining of Defendants CHRISTOPHER D. DUNTSCH, M.D.


AND TEXAS NEUROSURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.A. ("Defendants") and respectfully show the
following:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell intend that discovery be conducted under Level III
of TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 190.3.
II.
PARTIES
Plaintiff JEFFREY GLIDEWELL is an individual residing at 15077 Skyview Lane, Forney,
Kaufman County, Texas 75126. The last three digits of his social security number are XXX-XXX574.
Plaintiff ROBIN GLIDEWELL is an individual residing at 15077 Skyview Lane, Forney,
Kaufman County, Texas 75126. The last three digits of her social security number are XXX-XXX591.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 1

Defendant CHRISTOPHER D. DUNTSCH, M.D. is a physician who, at the time of the


incidents alleged herein, was licensed to do business in the State of Texas. He may be served
with process by serving him through his attorneys William Chamblee and Ryan Wozny,
CHAMBLEE RYAN KERSHAW ANDERSON, P.C., located at 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway,
Suite 1157, Dallas, Texas 75207.
Defendant TEXAS NEUROSURGICAL INSTITUTE, PA is a Professional Association
that, at the time of the incidents alleged herein, was doing business in the State of Texas and
may be served with process by serving its attorneys William Chamblee and Ryan Wozny,
CHAMBLEE RYAN KERSHAW ANDERSON, P.C., located at 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway,
Suite 1157, Dallas, Texas 75207.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(l) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, venue
is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause because the Plaintiffs
damages are within this Courts jurisdictional limits. This Court has personal jurisdiction over
Defendants.
In accordance with Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek
monetary relief of over $200,000.00 but not more than $1,000,000.00.
IV.
COMPLIANCE WITH DALLAS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 1.08
Pursuant to Dallas County Local Rule 1.08, Plaintiffs make this Court aware that their
case is related to five other cases filed in Dallas County District Court. The related cases, in
order of filing, are as follows:

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

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

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

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.

Dr. Duntsch did not disclose any information about

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.

NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER D. DUNTSCH, M.D.


Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Robin Glidewell would show that Defendant Christopher D.

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

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

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.

Failing to formulate an accurate diagnosis based on contemporaneous,


appropriate neuroimaging studies and physical examination;

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.

Failing to accurately interpret an MRI scan;

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.

Failing to conduct an operation in an accurate and safe manner so as to limit the


likelihood of technical errors and/or injury to vital anatomical structures;

h.

Failing to use sound surgical judgment and acceptable surgical technique;

i.

Failing to immediately identify the serious intra-operative and post-operative


complications and their significance;

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.

Failing to arrange for appropriate post-operative consultations with


physicians/surgeons who could manage Mr. Glidewells post-operative severe
complications.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

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.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

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

12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 725


Dallas, Texas 75230
(214)329-1350
(800) 582-1042 Fax
kay@vanweylaw.com
-ANDALDOUS LAW FIRM
CHARLA G. ALDOUS
State Bar. No. 20545235
caldous@aldouslaw.com
BRENT R. W ALKER
State Bar No. 24047053
bwalker@aldouslaw.com
HEATHER L. LONG
State Bar No. 24055865
hlong@aldouslaw.com
2311 Cedar Springs Road,
Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 526-5595
(214) 526-5525 Fax
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
on opposing counsel of record on this 21st day of August, 2015 as follows:
VIA EFILE & FACSIMILE
William H. Chamblee / Doug R. Lewis / Ryan D. Wozny
CHAMBLEE, RYAN, KERSHAW & ANDERSON, PC
2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1157
Dallas, Texas 75207
VIA EFILE & FACSIMILE
David Luningham
WATSON, CARAWAY, MIDKIFF & LUNINGHAM, L.L.P.
3400 Carlisle Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75204
/s/ Kay L. Van Wey
Kay L. Van Wey

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

Page 8

You might also like