Deceptive Trade Practices. Mr. Baker represented an individual and his family in connection with a deceptive trade practice claim against a national tour operator. The client had purchased a trip for he and his family to Mexico through the tour operator, with accommodations to be provided at a five star hotel. Upon arrival, the client was advised that the designated hotel had no rooms available, and that the client would be moved to a different, but comparable, hotel. After the transfer, the client found that the second hotel was sub-standard, maintained third world living conditions, and was located on a nude beach. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Wrongful Termination. Mr. Baker represented a nurse who had been terminated following her reporting an improper alteration to a patient’s chart. During discovery, it was established that his client had reported that another nurse, at the direction of nursing supervisors, had altered a patient’s chart to omit certain events occurring in the patient’s care. The client reported this to hospital administration and the client was subsequently terminated. Mr. Baker established that following the reporting of this legal violation, the hospital had subjected the client to numerous and progressively more difficult testing, which the client was required to pass in order to maintain the client’s job. The client passed each test and eventually the hospital claimed the client had failed a test (when in fact the test was passed). As a last resort, the hospital required the client to pass an additional clinical test in order to keep the client’s job. The hospital also claimed the client failed this test. However, in discovery, Mr. Baker established that the “final test” was supposedly “lost” by the hospital’s employees. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Wrongful Termination. Mr. Baker represented an individual who was wrongfully terminated from her employment of over 20 years. During discovery, it was established that the client’s supervisor had monitored the client’s daily activities and time reporting for several months. The supervisor eventually claimed that the client’s daily activities during this time frame had been improper, and the information which was accumulated during this period of monitoring was the basis for the client’s termination. Mr. Baker established that the supervisor had violated numerous company policies in failing to immediately correct or reprimand the client for this behavior, and that other employees had engaged in similar conduct but had not been reprimanded or terminated. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Physician and Hospital Negligence. Mr. Baker represented the spouse of a patient who passed away following a routine surgical procedure at a hospital. During discovery, Mr. Baker established that the anesthesiologist assigned to care for the patient disregarded the readings on the machine designed to monitor the patient’s oxygen saturations. These readings became dangerously low during the procedure. The anesthesiologist assumed that the low readings were incorrect, and sent a nurse to obtain another machine. The new machine confirmed the original readings were correct and shortly thereafter the patient “coded.” The patient was revived but passed away several days later. Mr. Baker also established that the hospital was negligent in contracting with the anesthesiologist. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Physician and Hospital Negligence. Mr. Baker represented the estate of a young woman who passed away after a laceration to an artery during a routine surgical procedure at an Ambulatory Surgery Center (“ASC”). During discovery, Mr. Baker established that the hospital failed to have blood for transfusions available within a reasonable time (the blood supply was located at the main hospital 15 miles away), and that the hospital’s administrator had over ridden a recommendation by the hospital’s physicians that the blood supply be located on site at the ASC. The administrator’s decision was based upon the financial cost of maintaining a blood supply on site at the ASC. The evidence also established that the physician performing the procedure was negligent. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Industrial Accident. Mr. Baker represented an individual who received disabling injuries to both feet and ankles as a result of a fall from an elevated height. The client was responsible for climbing onto a ladder so that he could clean the walls of a pit at a local industrial plant. The pit was approximately 30 feet deep. The plant’s employees were responsible for ensuring that the client was placed into a safety harness and secured to a safety line. When the ladder slid out from under the client, the client fell approximately 15 feet because the safety line had not been tied off. Mr. Baker established that the fall was due to the plant’s employee’s negligence. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: $1,545,000.00. (client portion of recovery after deductions for fees and expenses $881,404.50)

Nursing Negligence. Mr. Baker represented the family of an individual who passed away following a hospital admission for treatment of a broken hip. During discovery, the evidence established that the hospital’s nursing staff repeatedly administered, relatively large dosages of narcotics to the patient. With each dosage, the patient became more lethargic and non-responsive. Eventually, the patient became completely obtunded and comatose. Despite this development, the patient was taken to surgery for a hip repair operation. Following surgery, the patient remained comatose and the hospital claimed the patient had suffered a stroke. Through expert testimony, Mr. Baker established that no stroke had occurred, and that in all probability the patient had been over medicated with narcotics, thereby causing the patient’s death. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Physician Negligence. Mr. Baker represented an individual who suffered severe complications following a surgeon’s failure to diagnose an intra-abdominal abscess. During discovery, Mr. Baker established that after an initial exploratory surgery, the client had been released to recuperate at home, but returned to the hospital several days later with numerous complaints. Despite the fact that the client’s complaints were “text book” examples of symptoms indicating the client had developed an intra-abdominal abscess, the surgeon again released the client to return to the client’s home. Several days later, the client returned to the hospital and was determined at that time to be suffering from severe complications from the undiagnosed intra-abdominal abscess. After a six week hospital stay, the client was released. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Hospital Antitrust. Mr. Baker represented a group of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) who were to be excluded from their practice at a hospital due to an exclusive provider contract (“the contract”). During a hearing on his client’s request for a temporary injunction, Mr. Baker established that the hospital had acted in an anti-competitive manner in granting the contract, and that the anesthesiologists to whom the contract had been awarded were lacking in experience and had caused patient injuries and possible deaths. The trial judge found that the hospital had violated the antitrust statute and granted a temporary injunction finding that the implementation of the contract posed a risk to the safety of the public. This case was resolved through an agreed settlement. Settlement amount: Confidential.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker represented an individual in a contested custody case, in which the trial judge had awarded primary custody of the child to the other party following an initial temporary orders hearing. Mr. Baker did not represent the client at the initial temporary orders hearing. During trial, Mr. Baker exposed a number of significant inconsistencies in the other party’s testimony and claims, and obtained through cross examination, a concession from the opposing party’s testifying psychologist that the other party was probably not a suitable candidate for primary conservator of the child. The trial judge awarded custody of the child to Mr. Baker’s client.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker assumed representation of an individual in a contested custody case, in which the trial judge had indicated that he was going to award primary custody of the child to the parties’ adult child. Mr. Baker substituted for the prior attorney, and made numerous procedural and substantive objections, and the judge reconsidered his earlier inclination to place the child with the parties’ adult child. Following a number of hearings before the Court, Mr. Baker’s client received custody of the child.

Contested Custody. Mr. Baker represented an individual whose children were divided into a split custody arrangement following an earlier court proceeding. Mr. Baker did not represent the individual in the earlier court proceeding. In the subsequent case, the social study investigator recommended that the children be allowed to live with the opposing party. During trial, Mr. Baker demonstrated that the other parent utilized poor parenting techniques with the children and raised numerous other issues establishing that the best interests of the children were served by placing the children with his client. Mr. Baker also demonstrated that the social study investigator had deviated from the standards applicable to social study investigations and therefore, her recommendations were unreliable. Following the trial, the trial judge awarded custody of the children to Mr. Baker’s client.

Contested Property Division. Mr. Baker represented an individual in a contested property division case, which resulted in a favorable property division for Mr. Baker’s client. During trial, Mr. Baker established that the opposing party had utilized a separate corporation to defraud the community estate of its fair share of community assets. Mr. Baker also established that the opposing party’s claims of separate property were invalid due to the opposing party’s failure to overcome the community property presumption, by properly tracing and proving the separate property nature of the contested items of property. The trial court’s division of assets was upheld by the Dallas Court of Appeals on appeal.