## Facts

- George Roberts, age 91, lived at Western Hills Health Care Center (WHHCC), a nursing home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and suffered from Alzheimer’s-type dementia.
- Roberts fell and broke his leg. The leg was treated at a hospital, placed in a full cast, and Roberts was returned to WHHCC.
- Over the next month, urine leaked into Roberts’s cast, and employees reported the cast was dirty and smelled foul, but no effective action was taken.
- When Roberts was later transported to a hospital, removal of the cast revealed a severely infected condition associated with the fracture; Roberts later died from the infection.
- WHHCC was a Medicaid-certified facility, and Roberts was a Medicaid patient.
- Michael Dewey, an investigator with Oklahoma’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU), went to WHHCC to investigate the circumstances surrounding Roberts’s death.
- During his visit, Dewey saw a photograph depicting another resident’s buttocks with what appeared to be a serious bedsore.
- Dewey sought access to the photograph and information and records identifying the photographed resident. WHHCC refused, asserting the pictured resident was not a Medicaid patient and that Dewey was not entitled to that resident’s records.
- Dewey obtained a search warrant, but WHHCC still refused to provide identification, information, and records related to the photographed resident.
- Patsy “Pat” Thomason was the regional director for the Tutera Group, the management entity for WHHCC.
- The State charged Thomason with (1) caretaker neglect based on Roberts’s care and death, and (2) obstructing an officer based on WHHCC’s refusal to provide the photograph-related information and records during the MFCU investigation.
- Thomason argued she was not a “caretaker” within the caretaker-neglect statute and that the MFCU lacked authority to demand non-Medicaid patient records due to confidentiality limits.
- The trial court dismissed the caretaker-neglect charge and quashed/dismissed the obstruction charge, and the State filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Thomason, as a regional director for the nursing home’s management entity, fell within the statutory definition of “caretaker” so she could be prosecuted for caretaker neglect under 21 O.S. § 843.1.
2. Whether Thomason could be prosecuted for obstructing an officer under 21 O.S. § 540 based on refusal to provide information and records about a non-Medicaid resident during an MFCU institutional-abuse investigation.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the caretaker-neglect count.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s quashal/dismissal of the obstructing-an-officer count.
- The State’s appeal failed as to both challenged counts; the case proceeded, if at all, only on any remaining, unchallenged counts.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal statutes are construed strictly; courts will not expand liability beyond the statute’s text.
- Under Oklahoma’s caretaker-neglect statute (21 O.S. § 843.1), the State must show the accused fits the statutory definition of “caretaker,” not merely that the accused held a managerial role connected to a facility where neglect occurred.
- A facility manager or regional director is not automatically a “caretaker” for caretaker-neglect purposes absent a statutory basis tying that person to responsibility for the vulnerable adult’s care as defined by the statute.
- Obstructing an officer under 21 O.S. § 540 requires interference with an officer performing a duty the officer is legally authorized to perform.
- The MFCU’s authority to obtain records in a Medicaid-related investigation is limited by statute; where the Unit lacks statutory authority to compel or seize non-Medicaid patient records, refusal to provide such materials cannot support an obstruction charge premised on the officer’s performance of lawful duties.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dismissal of the caretaker-neglect charge because Thomason’s role as a regional director for the nursing home’s management company did not place her within the caretaker-neglect statute’s definition of “caretaker,” and it upheld dismissal of the obstruction charge because the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit lacked statutory authority to demand records and information for a non-Medicaid resident, so resistance to that demand could not constitute obstructing an officer.


State v. Thomason, 2001 Ok. Cr. 27, 33 P.3d 930 (2001)