A Tulsa County, Oklahoma jury awarded $15 million to the family of August Montgomery, a child who suffered permanent brain damage and lifelong disabilities after bacterial meningitis was allegedly misdiagnosed and left untreated during a December 2018 emergency department visit. The case, Montgomery v. Katie Jackson, M.D., et al., was tried in the District Court of Tulsa County before Judge Kevin Gray. According to the record described at trial, the jury deliberated for roughly four hours before returning its verdict. The award reflects the long-term medical and supportive needs associated with catastrophic pediatric neurologic injury, while also underscoring the litigation focus on early recognition of serious bacterial infection in emergency settings.
Emergency Department Presentation and Clinical Decision-Making
Trial testimony described August Montgomery as five months old in December 2018 when she was brought to a Tulsa-area hospital emergency department for what plaintiffs characterized as her third visit in five days. Evidence presented to the jury described several concerning symptoms, including a four-day fever, vomiting, lethargy, respiratory symptoms, decreased urine output, and decreased activity. A complete blood count ordered by the on-call pediatric emergency physician reportedly showed a markedly elevated white blood cell count and elevated neutrophils, findings that plaintiffs argued were consistent with a serious bacterial infection rather than an uncomplicated viral illness.
Despite those laboratory results and the described clinical picture, the physician diagnosed a possible viral illness and discharged the infant without obtaining a blood culture or administering antibiotics, according to trial testimony. Plaintiffs framed the dispute around whether the standard of care required escalation of the workup and empiric treatment in light of the lab abnormalities and persistent symptoms. The defense position, as summarized at trial, was that the presentation could be consistent with a viral process. The jury ultimately accepted the plaintiffs’ theory that the diagnostic and treatment decisions at that initial visit materially altered the child’s outcome.
Meningitis Diagnosis, Progression, and Permanent Neurologic Injury
Less than 48 hours after discharge, the child returned to the hospital in critical condition with seizures and partial paralysis, as presented to the jury. A lumbar puncture later confirmed Streptococcus pneumoniae infection, and clinicians identified bacterial meningitis. By the time of that later presentation, the infection had progressed and was described as having caused multiple strokes and permanent brain damage, with testimony indicating that irreversible injury had already occurred by the time targeted treatment began.
The evidence regarding the child’s subsequent condition emphasized the long-term functional consequences of meningitis-associated neurologic injury. The record described permanent brain damage with partial paralysis and a seizure disorder, including spastic hemiplegia and significant developmental and physical delays. The child was also described as having cerebral palsy with severe cognitive delays, requiring cochlear implants for hearing, and functioning at approximately a 15- to 18-month developmental level at age seven. Her initial course of care reportedly included 44 days of hospitalization, with brain surgery and treatment for multiple strokes, followed by the expectation of lifelong therapies and specialized supports.
Standard-of-Care Dispute, Trial Proof, and Jury Verdict
Plaintiffs’ experts testified that the standard of care required a blood culture during the initial emergency department visit and that the standard was not met when the child was discharged without culture collection or antibiotic therapy. The plaintiffs argued that an earlier diagnosis and timely treatment would have prevented the catastrophic injuries. The case was presented as turning on a narrow decision point—whether to pursue bacterial infection workup and initiate treatment based on the lab values and clinical presentation. A statement attributed to lead trial counsel summarized the plaintiffs’ framing: “The labs were in the chart. And the path that would have prevented all of this, a blood culture and a single dose of antibiotics, was on the table, but was not chosen.”
Medical experts for the plaintiffs also testified that a single dose of ceftriaxone administered at the earlier visit would have sterilized the bloodstream within roughly two hours and prevented the meningitis from progressing. The family was represented by Wais Vogelstein Forman Koch & Norman, according to court filings, with trial counsel identified as Sharon Morgan and Natalie D’Antonio along with co-counsel Jeffrey Rasansky. After approximately four hours of deliberations, the Tulsa County jury returned a $15 million verdict. The verdict date was reported as May 27, 2026, and it was also announced in a May 21, 2026 statement.
Damages, Future Care Costs, and Procedural Posture
The $15 million award was described as reflecting the lifetime costs of medical care, therapy, equipment, and support services associated with the child’s condition, as well as the harm attributed to the alleged missed diagnosis. The verdict was also described as compensating for future medical expenses and lost future earnings. In cases involving severe pediatric neurologic injury, damages proof commonly centers on future-care projections over decades, including ongoing therapy needs, assistive technologies, and attendant services, with economic modeling used to present projected costs in present-value terms for the jury’s consideration.
Because the child’s impairments were described as permanent and multi-domain—motor deficits, seizure disorder, cognitive delays, and hearing-related needs—the damages narrative emphasized long-duration care planning rather than short-term medical bills. The case proceeded through trial to a jury verdict in Tulsa County District Court before Judge Kevin Gray, and the jury’s relatively brief deliberation period was cited as part of the procedural timeline. Post-verdict motions and any appeal considerations were not detailed in the available description, but the verdict as reported provides a reference point for how Oklahoma juries may evaluate causation and damages where plaintiffs tie a narrow clinical decision to a severe, lifelong outcome.
