CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2025-776

Charyl Edwards v. Post Acute Medical Specialty Hospital Of Tulsa, LLC d/b/a Post Acute Medical Rehab Hospital of Tulsa; a/k/a PAM Medical

Filed: Feb 25, 2025
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: in the world of workplace drama, few things are more unhinged than a hospital—a place literally built to heal people—turning around and trying to break an injured nurse just for following doctor’s orders. That’s exactly what Charyl Edwards says happened to her at Post Acute Medical Rehab Hospital of Tulsa, where she claims her employer didn’t just ignore her work restrictions after a back injury—they weaponized her schedule like it was a game of workplace Jenga, stacking shift upon shift of absurdity until her job finally collapsed under the weight of it all.

Charyl Edwards wasn’t some fly-by-night temp. She was a physical therapist assistant with nearly four years under her scrubs at PAM Rehab, the kind of employee hospitals love to brag about—reliable, skilled, and, crucially, someone who actually showed up. She’s also a single mom, which means her paycheck wasn’t just about pride—it was about groceries, school supplies, and making sure her daughter didn’t wake up to an empty house. Then, on February 13, 2024, during a routine shift, Edwards strained her lower back. Not catastrophic, not life-threatening, but enough to put her on medical restrictions: no lifting over 20 pounds, no long stretches of sitting, no bending, and a hard cap at eight hours of work per day. Standard stuff. The kind of thing workers’ comp exists for. So she did what any responsible employee would do—she reported it, got medical care, and handed over the paperwork like a golden ticket to job protection.

But instead of treating this like a routine workers’ comp case, PAM allegedly treated it like a personal vendetta. At first, they said they’d accommodate her—swore up and down she’d have help if a patient needed lifting, that her duties would be adjusted, that she could still do therapy work under supervision. There’s even a signed “Modified Duty Work Agreement” (Exhibit B, for the legal nerds in the back) spelling out exactly how this would work: Edwards would handle supervision and clerical tasks, a rehab tech would assist when lifting was needed, and she’d be scheduled for 31 hours a week. It sounded almost… reasonable.

Then the sabotage began.

PAM didn’t just fail to follow the agreement—they allegedly flipped it on its head. They scheduled Edwards for 12-hour shifts—12—as a receptionist, starting at 8 a.m. on Mondays. Let that sink in: a physical therapist assistant, recovering from a lumbar strain, told not to sit for long periods, now expected to clock in for a double shift at a front desk, doing a job she wasn’t trained for, on a day she’d never worked before. Oh, and by the way, this violated two of her restrictions: the 8-hour limit and the prolonged sitting rule. But sure, let’s call it “accommodation.” The real kicker? PAM cut another employee’s hours to make room for this bizarre scheduling stunt. So not only was Edwards being punished, but someone else got hit in the wallet too—just to make the retaliation look more plausible.

And then came the write-ups. Minor stuff. Like being three minutes late. For a shift they forced her to take, mind you—one that started earlier than any shift she’d ever worked. In four years, no one had been disciplined for a few minutes’ tardiness. But suddenly, with Edwards on workers’ comp? Paper trail time. Every little thing became a documented offense, like HR was collecting receipts for a future lawsuit. Meanwhile, PAM started “correcting” her time records—erasing hours she actually worked, delaying her pay for almost a month, which, surprise, violates Oklahoma’s Payday Act. They eventually had to reverse the changes, but the damage was done: stress, financial strain, and a growing sense that she was being slowly pushed out.

Then came May 20, 2024—the light at the end of the tunnel. Edwards was cleared by her doctor. Restrictions lifted. She was ready to return to full duty. And PAM’s response? They slashed her hours. From 30–35 per week down to 10–15. When she asked why, they said there wasn’t enough work—except, and this is the kind of detail that makes you gasp, they were actively hiring for her exact position at the same time. So either they’re terrible at forecasting staffing needs, or they’re lying. Take your pick.

Edwards reported the discrimination to HR. Classic move—goes on the record, does everything by the book. And PAM’s response? Double down. Managers started rerouting her patients. Literally pulling assignments from her schedule and giving them to others. On May 30, they called in another employee on their day off just so Edwards couldn’t take the shift. By June 3, she had zero hours scheduled. Not one. A full week with nothing. No work. No pay. No explanation. Just radio silence.

This, legally, is called “constructive termination”—when an employer makes your job so unbearable that you’re forced to quit. But here’s the twist: Edwards didn’t even get the dignity of a resignation. She was just… erased. And why? Because she got hurt on the job and followed the rules.

Now she’s suing under Oklahoma’s Worker’s Compensation Retaliation law, which very clearly says: you can’t punish someone for using workers’ comp. It’s not just unethical—it’s illegal. And Edwards isn’t just asking for lost wages (which could be up to $75,000, a lot for someone living paycheck to paycheck). She’s also seeking punitive damages—up to $100,000—because, let’s be real, what PAM allegedly did wasn’t just wrong, it was malicious. They didn’t just mess up—they allegedly orchestrated a months-long campaign of scheduling sabotage, patient poaching, and paper-trail harassment to punish a nurse for having the audacity to protect her own health.

And here’s the real gut punch: Edwards wasn’t just protecting herself. By refusing to lift patients while injured, she was protecting them. A strained back + a heavy patient = a fall waiting to happen. Oklahoma courts have actually said that protecting patient safety is a public policy interest—meaning employees who refuse to work under dangerous conditions should be protected, not punished. So in trying to force her to break her restrictions, PAM wasn’t just violating her rights—they were putting patients at risk. A hospital. Doing that. The irony is thicker than a rehab foam roller.

So what’s the most absurd part? Is it the 12-hour receptionist shift? The write-up for being three minutes late? The fact that they called in someone on their day off just to block her from working? Honestly, it’s the audacity of it all. This wasn’t some accidental oversight. This was a pattern. A modus operandi, as the filing suggests. And if true, it means PAM didn’t just break the law—they built a system to break people who try to use it.

We’re rooting for Charyl Edwards not just because she’s a single mom who played by the rules, but because her case is a warning shot. If hospitals can retaliate against injured staff—especially nurses, who are already stretched thinner than a blood pressure cuff—then we’re all in trouble. So yeah, this is petty in the sense that it’s not a murder mystery. But it’s huge in the sense that it’s about whether working people get to survive a workplace injury without losing their livelihood. And if PAM thought they could bury that truth in a stack of falsified time sheets and retaliatory schedules? Well. They just met a woman with a lawyer, a spine, and a very public petition. And we’re here for it.

Case Overview

Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$100,000 Punitive
Plaintiffs
  • Charyl Edwards individual
    Rep: Howard Berkson and Alexandr Sprenger of Boston Avenue Law PLLC
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Worker’s Compensation Retaliation Plaintiff was injured on the job and claims that her employer retaliated against her for seeking medical care and reporting workplace injuries.

Petition Text

2,459 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CJ-2025-00776 TRACY L. PRIDDY DISTRICT COURT FILED FEB 25 2025 DON NEWBERRY, Court Clerk STATE OF OKLA. TULSA COUNTY Charyl Edwards, Plaintiff, v. Post Acute Medical Specialty Hospital Of Tulsa, LLC, D/B/A Post Acute Medical Rehab Hospital of Tulsa; A/K/A PAM Medical A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Defendant. ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED VERIFIED PETITION COMES NOW, Charyl Edwards ("Edwards"), by and through her attorneys of record, Howard Berkson and Alexandr Sprenger of Boston Avenue Law PLLC, and alleges and states as follows in support of its claim against Defendant Post Acute Medical Specialty Hospital of Tulsa LLC, D/B/A Post Acute Medical Rehab Hospital of Tulsa; A/K/A PAM Medical ("PAM"). 1. The Tulsa County District Court is one of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate this civil action. Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 7; 12 O.S. 5 2004(F); 85A O.S. § 7(B). 2. PAM’s registered agent is listed as Corporation Service Company and the listed address is 10300 Greenbriar Place. Exhibit A (Secretary of State Filing).¹ 3. Tulsa County District Court is the proper venue for this action as PAM’s registered agent is located within the geographical boundaries of Tulsa County. 12 O.S. § 134. ¹ https://www.sos.ok.gov/corp/corplnformation.aspx?id=3712408540 Last accessed 01/07/2025 Relevant Facts 4. Edwards worked for PAM prior to her injury as a physical therapist assistant. She had worked there for close to four years prior to the involuntary constructive termination of her employment. 5. Edwards was injured on the job on February 13, 2024 when she suffered a lumbar strain. 6. Edwards promptly reported the incident and sought out medical care in accordance with PAM’s Worker’s Compensation policy. 7. After being seen by a physician, Edwards was placed on medical restrictions until May 20, 2024. These restrictions included a prohibition on lifting more than 20 pounds, not sitting for extended periods of time, not working for more than 8 hours per day, and no bending. 8. Edwards was still able to work as a therapist with her higher functioning patients even with her restrictions. Additionally, she would have been able to work with all of her patients if PAM had someone that could assist her with the lifting portion of her job. 9. However, When PAM became aware of her restrictions, they attempted to circumvent them. 10. PAM told Edwards that she would be provided with help from another employee if the patients she was assigned required her to perform work outside of her doctor’s restrictions such as lifting patients and carrying objects over the allotted weight. 11. However, PAM scheduled Edwards to work with patients that required lifting at times where other employees could not assist her. 12. Edwards refused to lift patients or carry heavy objects while she was under restrictions. 13. When Edwards refused to perform work outside of her doctor’s restrictions, PAM began to retaliate. 14. PAM told Edwards they could no longer accommodate both her work restrictions and her schedule. 15. Instead of working normal hours, PAM began scheduling her for strange shifts outside of her normal work availability. 16. These shifts involved job duties different from her normal responsibilities. One example was PAM’s choice to schedule her for twelve-hour shifts as a receptionist on Mondays. These shifts began at 8am, far earlier than her normal start time, and ended at 8pm. 17. This assignment was intended to be retaliatory as Edwards never worked shifts of that length or in the evenings on Mondays. Additionally, Edwards was a therapist, not a receptionist. The shift assignment was intended as a demotion. Moreover, It violated the 8 hour shift limit and sitting restrictions imposed by her doctor. 18. Edwards is a single mother and the new shift assignment prevented her from helping her daughter get ready for school in the mornings. 19. PAM was so eager to retaliate, that they actually cut another employee’s hours in order to assign Edwards the retaliatory shift. 20. PAM began to create written reprimands for minor offenses such as being three minutes late. During Edward’s four-year tenure at PAM, employees had never been written up for such infractions. This was made worse by the fact that each late offense was on the early morning, 12-hour shift, that PAM had assigned to Edwards after she sought Worker’s Compensation. 21. During the time that Edwards was on work restrictions, PAM manipulated her hours worked and made several “time corrections” that resulted in Edwards not being paid for work that she performed. PAM was eventually forced to reverse those time corrections, but Edwards’ pay was delayed for almost a month in violation of Oklahoma’s Payday Act. 40 O.S. § 165.2 22. Edwards was released from light duty work restrictions on May 20, 2024. 23. Edwards promptly provided the advanced written notice releasing her from light duty to PAM. 24. Once Edwards was released from restrictions, PAM cut her hours down each week. 25. In less than a full month, Edwards had gone from working an average of 30 or 35 hours per week down to 10 or 15 hours per week. 26. When asked, PAM stated that it was reducing her hours because there was not enough work to keep their more senior employees at full time status. PAM stated that it had temporarily rerouted her hours to those employees. 27. At the very same time, PAM was actively seeking to hire new employees with Edward’s job title. 28. On or about the week of May 20, 2024, Edwards noticed that her hours we being cut. 29. She reported the discrimination to PAM’s Human Resource department that same week. 30. Knowing that Edwards was a single mother with no other source of income, PAM instead overscheduled other employees to prevent Edwards from obtaining work. 31. In fact, management level employees at PAM were going behind the employee in charge of scheduling to redirect patients away from Edwards. 32. On May 30, 2024, PAM rescheduled a patient away from Edwards and into the care of another employee. PAM went so far as to call in that employee on their day off to ensure that Edwards could not perform that work. 33. By June 3, 2024, Edwards not scheduled to perform any work for PAM. 34. In fact, Edwards was not scheduled work any hours for the entire week. 35. PAM did so to retaliate against Edwards for using the Worker’s Compensation benefits mandated by law. 36. PAM did so in an attempt to force Edwards to quit her job at PAM. 37. Due to PAM’s constructive termination of Edwards, Edwards was eventually forced to find a new job that would schedule her to work. Count 1: Worker’s Compensation Retaliation 38. Edwards was injured on the job. 39. Edwards made a claim for medical care under the Worker’s Compensation policy at PAM. 40. Edwards received such medical care and was placed on work restrictions. 41. Edwards promptly communicated her medical restrictions to PAM. 42. PAM attempted to force Edwards into performing work that violated those restrictions. 43. PAM did so as retaliation for seeking medical care under the Worker’s Compensation framework. 44. PAM required Edwards to work strange and inconvenient shifts. 45. PAM did so as retaliation for seeking medical care under the Worker’s Compensation framework. 46. PAM effectively demoted Edwards to a less prestigious position even though Edwards could have performed most of her job duties with her restrictions. See Exhibit B (Modified Work Agreement). 47. PAM did so as retaliation for seeking medical care under the Worker’s Compensation framework. 48. PAM cut Edward’s hours, thus cutting her weekly pay. 49. PAM did so as retaliation for seeking medical care under the Worker’s Compensation framework. 50. PAM instructed other employees to retaliate against Edwards by isolating her and reducing her ability to see patients. 51. PAM reduced Edwards’ weekly hours to zero on the week of June 3, 2024. 52. In doing so, PAM constructively terminated Edwards’ employment. 53. PAM’s termination was retaliation for filing a claim for Worker’s Compensation in violation of 85A O.S. § 7(A)(1). 54. Plaintiff believes they are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery to show that PAM’s actions in eliminating Edwards’ hours and altering her schedule are within PAM’s Modus Operandi for retaliating against whistleblowers and other individuals who utilize the civil rights granted to them by both state and federal statute. Burk Tort 55. Oklahoma law recognizes an action in Tort against an employer who terminates an employee engaged in acts that are strongly within the public policy of the state of Oklahoma, and there is no other adequate remedy to protect the identified public policy. Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24; Young v. Station 27, Inc., 2017 OK 68, 404 P.3d 829 (stating that simple Worker’s Compensation discrimination is not actionable under Burk). 56. The Oklahoma Constitution states that “The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.” Article 2, Section II-6 (often referred to as the Oklahoma Bill of Rights). 57. To the extent that Edwards is not protected by Worker’s Compensation Law, Edwards may seek damages under Burk. 58. Edwards’ termination was due, in part, to her refusal to violate her work restrictions given to her by her doctor. 59. Oklahoma law has previously extended Burk protections to medical employees who refuse to work while sick. Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Ctr., LLC, 2016 OK 28, 376 P.3d 894. 60. Oklahoma has a strong public policy of ensuring proper patient care. 61. A hospital owes a specialized duty to its patients. Warner v. Kiowa Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 1976 OK CIV APP 11, 551 P.2d 1179. Nurses and other medical professionals often assist the most venerable people in our nation. The State has a strong interest in protecting those persons from substandard or negligent care. See Moore. 62. Attempting to lift a patient while injured would increase the risk of a fall and needlessly expose the lifted patient to significant injury. 63. PAM’s direction to work outside of Edwards’ restrictions was needlessly dangerous to the very people they claim to care for. 64. Edward’s termination was due, in part, to her report of illegal acts, including but not limited to worker’s compensation harassment and the instruction to work outside of her restrictions, to PAM’s Human Resources Department. 65. Oklahoma law protects whistleblowers when they report their employer's public-policy violation to the proper authorities, be that the police or the companies Human Resources department. Vasek v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Noble Cnty., 2008 OK 35, ¶ 22, 186 P.3d 928, 933. (discussing Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1, 176 P.3d 1204). 66. The Court went on to say that “[e]mployees who report and complain of an employer's unlawful or unsafe practices and whose actions seek to further public good by unmasking these breaches should be protected from an employer's retaliation”. Id. 67. Edwards’ termination was caused, in part, by her good faith attempt to report unsafe and unlawful activities in the workplace. 68. As such, Edwards’ termination was unlawful. Damages 69. As a result of PAM’s actions, Edwards has lost wages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not more than $75,000. 70. Edwards was forced to take a non-commensurate position as a result of the unlawful termination and harassment she suffered at the hands of Defendant PAM. Edwards is entitled to damages for damage to her professional reputation, loss of prestige, and humiliation in an amount to be determined at trial, that may exceed $75,000. 71. PAM’s actions show a clear disregard for the law and their actions rise to the level of culpability sufficient to support punitive damages. 72. Punitive damages for Worker’s Compensation Retaliation are not to exceed $100,000. Such damages are authorized by 85A O.S. § 7(C). 73. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney fee and the costs of the action under 85A O.S. § 7(D). WHEREFORE, premise considered, Edwards prays for judgment against Defendant in amount greater than $75,000 to be determined at trial, punitive damages not to exceed $100,000, a reasonable attorney’s fee under 85A O.S. § 7(C), the costs of this action, pre and post judgment interest as specified by 12 O.S. 2013 Supp. §727.1, and for any and all further relief the Court deems is proper in the circumstances. **Signature page for Verified Petition** **Edwards v. Post Acute Medical** RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, [signature] Donald Slaughter, OBA No. 31227 Alexandr Sprenger, OBA #35843 BOSTON AVENUE LAW PLLC 320 S. Boston Ave., Suite 718 Tulsa, OK 74103 (t) 539.777.1287 / (f) 405.509.7100 Email: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF TULSA ) ss. I, Charyl Edwards of lawful age, and with sound mind, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states the following: That I have assisted in the preparation of, am familiar with, and have read the forgoing document and that the contents are true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. ______________________________ Affiant Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of January, 2025. KIRSTEN I. BERNHARDT Notary Public in and for STATE OF OKLAHOMA Commission #22010041 Expires 25 Jan 2026 Kirsten I Bernhardt Notary Public My Commission Number _______________________ My Commission Expires: _____________________________ [SEAL.] Entity Summary Information PROST ACUTE SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF DELA USA LLC Details Filing Number: 371429540 Name Type: Legal Name Status: In Existance Corp Type: Foreign Limited Liability Company Jurisdiction: DELAWARE, USA Formation Date: 13 Jun 2013 Registered Agent Information Name: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY Effective: 13 Jun 2013 Address: 13300 GREENBRIAR PLACE City State ZipCode: OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73156 7657 Modified Duty Work Agreement For use when employee is released for work with restrictions. Post Acute Medical Facility Tulsa Rehab You are responsible for knowing your restrictions and limitations and expected to be aware of them at all times. Never attempt tasks that exceed your restrictions and limitations. If a question exists with regard to assigned tasks or restrictions, advise your supervisor immediately. Remember the medical restrictions are in effect 24 hours per day. Always exercise caution in your personal time to see that the restrictions are maintained. If you have hobbies or other outside interests, consult with the treating physician on possible effects. Please include the following information: 1. List the medical restrictions submitted by employee's doctor or attach work status form. No lifting over 20 pounds, No prolonged sitting without a 15 minute break per 2 hour shift, No stooping, No bending, No working more than 8 hours per day. 2. Describe the modified work employee will do for the duration of this agreement. Treating supervision only patients - no physical assistance. If physical assistance is needed a rehab tech will work alongside Cheryl and Cheryl will direct the care. Clerical work as needed by other hospital departments to be coordinated with supervisor Richard Tuggle. Cheryl will be accommodated for 31 hours per week Cheryl will utilize the time clock system as indicated by PAM policy. That includes clocking out for all appointments and treatments related to the workers compensation injury. Cheryl Edwards Name of Employee (please print clearly) Signature of Employee 3/11/24 Date Richard Tuggle Name of Supervisor (please print clearly) Signature of Supervisor 3/11/24 Date
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.