Dai'ja Thomas Lawsuit Against SMU, Travis Mays

CAUSE NO.
DAI’JA THOMAS, § IN THE COUNTY COURT

Plaintiff, §
§
VS. §
§ AT LAW _____ OF
SOUTHERN METHODIST §
UNIVERSITY; SOUTHERN §
METHODIST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF §
TRUSTEES; TRAVIS MAYS; and DR. §
JOHN BAKER §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiff, DAI’JA THOMAS (“Plaintiff” herein), files this Original Petition against
Defendants SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY; SOUTHERN METHODIST
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; TRAVIS MAYS; and DR. JOHN BAKER, and alleges
as follows:
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that discovery in this case be conducted under Level 3 by further order of this Court, as set
forth in Rule 190.4.
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Dai’Ja Thomas is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Plaintiff
resides in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.
3. Defendant Southern Methodist University (“SMU”), is a Texas corporation whose
registered office is located in Dallas County, Texas. Defendant SMU may be served with process
by serving its registered agent Paul J. Ward, Perkins Admin Bldg., 6425 Boaz Lane, Room 130,
Dallas, Texas 75205.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1

4. Defendant Southern Methodist University Board of Trustees (“SMU Board”), is a
Texas business that does business in Dallas County, Texas. Defendant SMU Board may be served
with process by serving its chairman, Robert H. Dedman, located at 5956 Sherry Lane, Dallas,
Texas 75225.
5. Defendant Travis Mays (“Coach Mays”) is an individual who resides at 421
Winding Ridge Trail, Southlake, Texas. Mays may be served with process at his place of business
at SMU, Crum Basketball Center, 3005 Binkley Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205, or wherever he
may be found.
6. Dr. John Baker (“Dr. Baker”) is an individual who resides in 7263 FM 1830,
Argyle, Texas. Mays may be served with process at his place of business at The Carrell Clinic,
9301 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75231.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in
controversy exceeds this Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements, exclusive of costs and
interest, and because one or more of the Defendants are residents of the state of Texas, maintain
their principal place of business in the State of Texas, and/or are doing business in the State of
Texas. This case cannot be removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because
multiple defendants are forum defendants.
8. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to § 15.001, et. seq., of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code because Defendant SMU’s principal office is located in Dallas
County, as well as the place of residence of Plaintiff.

IV. FACTS
A. DEFENDANTS
9. Upon information and belief, the following is known about the named Defendants
in this action:
a. Defendant Southern Methodist University is a private university in the

Division 1 level of the NCAA;
b. At the time of the incident in question, Defendant SMU employed the

following Defendants:
i. Dr. John Baker (Head Orthopedic Team Physician for the

SMU Athletic Department)
ii. Travis Mays (Head Coach for SMU Women’s Basketball).
B. DAI’JA THOMAS
10. Plaintiff Dai’Ja Thomas, born in 1997, is a life-long resident of Dallas County.
Dai’Ja attended Skyline High School in Dallas, Texas where she was a four-year letter-winner and
named District 9-6A MVP, as well as Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year. Dai’Ja was also
named Miss Basketball in Texas her senior year. Dai’Ja led Skyline to a 29-10 record and a trip to
the regional semifinals, earning all-state honors after her junior year season – all while maintaining
stellar grades and graduating in the top 10 percent of her class. In November of 2014, Dai’Ja
committed to Defendant Southern Methodist University to play college basketball. Dai’Ja received
a full scholarship to attend SMU for college basketball starting in the Fall of 2015.
11. As a freshman (2015-2016 season), Dai’Ja played in 30 games with one start. She
averaged 5.0 points and 4.1 rebounds per game, all while only playing 16.7 minutes per contest.
Dai’Ja led the team with a 48.7 shooting percentage (55-of-113). Dai’Ja scored at least 10 points
four times, with a season-high 12 points three times. She finished the season with 20 assists, 31
blocks and 16 steals.

12. As a sophomore (2016-2017 season), Dai’Ja’s statistics and game play steadily
continued to improve. Dai’Ja’s sophomore season included playing in 31 games with 10 starts,
averaging 6.2 points and 5.1 rebounds per game. As a sophomore, Dai’Ja was second on the team
with 40 blocks and had two double-doubles.
13. As a junior (2017-2018 season), Dai’Ja faithfully played in all 30 games with 21
starts despite suffering a knee injury. Dai’Ja was second on the team and 13th in the conference
with 6.4 rebounds per game. She scored 15 points and tied the SMU single-game record with 22
rebounds against East Carolina, and had at least 10 rebounds six times. Dai’Ja was also again
second on the team with 31 blocks.
C. COACH TRAVIS MAYS
14. Dai’Ja’s basketball career trajectory dramatically changed with Defendant Coach
Travis Mays’ hiring and takeover of the SMU Women’s Basketball program. Although Dai’Ja’s
statistics continued to speak for themselves her junior season, she was suffering physically and
mentally.
15. Dai’Ja played through the entire 2017-2018 season on a knee injury at the behest,
encouragement, and treatment recommendation of SMU and its employees—including coaches
and training staff and SMU’s own head orthopedic team physician. The severity and treatment of
her injury was well known to the team and trainers because Dai’Ja had to receive shots and fluid
drains every two weeks just to keep her on the court. The shots and fluid drains were administered
by SMU and SMU’s head orthopedic team physician, Dr. John Baker.
16. Despite Dai’Ja’s hard work and exemplary statistics, things started to go downhill
in the 2017-2018 season, when Mays’ first recruiting class enrolled at SMU. Defendant Mays
began an abusive and manipulative coaching practice that put players’ mental and physical

well-being at stake. Practices and team meetings continued long after previous seasons and often
involved harsh and manipulative treatment – and player exhaustion and injuries increased as a
direct result.
17. Two weeks before the 2017-2018 season started, Mays unexpectedly kicked two
scholarship seniors off the roster — Devri Owens and Aurmani DeGar. According to team
members, an explanation was never given to the players themselves nor to anyone else on the
roster. Notably, Devri Owens’s sister, a five-start recruit, decommitted to SMU on 2017 (and went
on to play for UCLA). Devri was dismissed from SMU’s team shortly after her sister’s
decommitment to SMU. This of course caused the seniors to lose their scholarships and created a
tense and fearful atmosphere amongst players.
18. As the season went on, Mays continued to create a divide between the six-person
senior class, who had not been recruited by Mays, and the four-member freshman class. At one
point, Mays told the seniors to pretend the opposing defender was then-freshman Johnasia Cash
because he thought they didn’t like her. During one midseason meeting, Mays went around the
room and asked everyone to speak their opinion of the senior class. One staffer, director of player
development Rae Brown, said members of the senior class were disrespectful, manipulative,
conniving and fake.
19. Team meetings would routinely go for three-plus hours – so long that practice
would be cancelled. Players would not be taught about basketball or watch film during these
meetings – it would strictly be confined to players’ behavior and personal comparisons.
20. Defendant Mays’ abusive practices were recently revealed by the Dallas Morning
News, which detailed the incidences contained herein and which Plaintiff Dai’Ja Thomas
experienced. Eight team members described the debilitating and divisive culture fostered by

Defendant Mays, including the needless cutting of players from the roster, and threatening to speak
negatively to future employers.
21. In one of the more vicious examples of abuse, at the end of a practice during the
2017-2018 season, Defendant Mays gathered the team at center court. Unhappy with how practice
went, Mays made a comment that sent a shock throughout the tired team: “If you’re not going to
compete, you may as well kill yourselves.”
22. All team members witnessed and heard the comment, and all agree that Defendant
Mays clearly suggested his team members take their lives as a best recourse for less-than-
exemplary play. At the time of this comment, senior Klara Bradshaw burst into tears. Her father
had recently died by suicide, a fact well known to the team and coaching staff. Still, Mays asked
her why she was crying, according to players in attendance. A team trainer took her away into a
separate room so she could let her emotions out with more privacy.
23. Bradshaw detailed her experience with this incident and her senior year in a blog
post published in late January. Bradshaw’s coming forward led others to do the same and speak
out against Defendant Mays’s abusive practices, but for Dai’Ja Thomas it was too late. Her injuries
were the excuse that Defendant Mays needed to eliminate his remaining “non-recruits” from the
team.
D. PRESSURE TO CONTINUE TO PLAY/INJURY EXACERBATION
24. Between November 10, 2017 and March 3, 2018, Dai’Ja received tremendous
pressure to return to play despite her pain and her condition. These pressures came directly and
indirectly from Defendant SMU, the SMU Board, Coach Travis Mays, Dr. John Baker, and
assistant coaching staff and trainers of SMU. In total, Dai’Ja underwent more than a dozen steroid
shots and fluid drains to her knee over the 2017-2018 season.

25. Dai’Ja’s knee injury was not given the attention of an MRI, surgery, rest, or
rehabilitation – instead, SMU and its doctor provided the bare minimum necessary to keep Dai’Ja
on the court. This pressure continued up until the time of her medical disqualification in August
of 2018.
26. The targeted bullying and conflict fostered by Defendant Mays’ and his coaching
staff terrified Dai’Ja Thomas, then a Junior, and others. Defendant Mays and his staff had clearly
launched a campaign to get non-Mays’ recruits out.
27. Given this atmosphere and behavior, Dai’Ja was fearful to lose her place on the
team and scholarship. Dai’Ja began to receive targeted criticism and pressure related to her knee
injury.
28. Specifically, Dai’Ja was first pressured to continue playing through her knee injury
when her body broke down one practice in the middle of the 2017-2018 season. During this
practice, Dai’Ja informed coaching staff and trainers that it would be too painful for her to run on
knee and participate. Defendant Mays pulled Dai’Ja aside and chastised her for what he deemed
“disrespect.” Defendant Mays was visibly upset by Dai’Ja’s decision to remove herself from
practice to deal with her level of pain and request treatment.
29. Dai’Ja received pressure to continue to play and train heavily despite her pain, and
any weakness was seen as reason to be disciplined and ultimately cut, instead of treated. The
message that all players were replaceable was reinforced regularly by Defendant Mays and his
staff’s abusive practices.
30. The abusive practices culminated in Defendant Mays openly informing a parent of
another player that he hoped Dai’Ja would “break down so she moves on.” Parents in the stands at
basketball games had noticed and commented on the fact that Dai’Ja did not “look right.” Parents

of players further began commenting on the coach’s lack of care and abuse towards his players.
Parents then emailed coaching staff about the coach’s comment with regard to Dai’Ja, expressing
shock over hearing the coach so clearly put his priorities over Dai’Ja’s medical needs. However,
Dai’Ja did not learn of this comment until after her body had already broken down, fulfilling Coach
Mays’ clearly-expressed wishes.
31. As a result of the abusive atmosphere and the continued pressure from SMU’s own
employees, Dai’Ja played through her severe knee injury for the entirety of the 2017-2018 – all 31
games. However, exactly what Dai’Ja tried to avoid eventually came to pass. Cruelly, it was not
until after the season that SMU’s staff medically disqualified Dai’Ja “because of her knee.” SMU
refused to pay for surgery or rehabilitation, and Dai’Ja lost her scholarship, and with it, her ability
to continue her education, as a result of the disqualification.
E. KNEE INJURIES AND STANDARD TREATMENT
32. The standard of care in treating a knee injury for an athlete depends on the type and
severity of the injury, but typically physical therapy, immobilization, and/or surgery is needed,
followed by rest for eight to twelve weeks until the athlete is pain-free or has minimal pain and
then light rehabilitation. If rest and rehabilitation do not ameliorate the athlete’s condition, then
corticosteroid therapy may be considered.
33. The use of corticosteroids and/or numbing agent should be limited because they
can result in atrophy of the surrounding tissues and further break-down of the joint and cartilage,
especially with frequent administration or excessive doses. This atrophy can result in further
musculoskeletal injury.
34. In fact, the NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook 1 specifically recommends that:
1
2014-2015 NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook, Guideline 2N, Injectable Corticosteroids in Sports Injuries

a. Injectable corticosteroids should be administered only after more
conservative treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
agents, rest, ice, ultrasound and various treatment modalities, have
been exhausted.
b. Repeated corticosteroid injections at a specific site should be done

only after the consequences and benefits of the injections have been
thoroughly evaluated.
c. Corticosteroid injections only should be done if a therapeutic effect

is medically warranted and the student-athlete is not subject to either
short- or long-term significant risk.
d. These agents should only be administered when medically justified,

when the risk of administration is fully explained to the student-
athlete, when the use is not harmful to continued athletics activity
and when there is no enhancement of a risk of injury.
35. Local anesthetics are also commonly used to treat athletes with knee injuries for the
pain the condition exudes. The NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook 2 specifically recommends that:
a. These agents should only be administered when medically justified,

when the risk of administration is fully explained to the patient,
when the use is not harmful to continued athletics activity and when
there is no enhancement of a risk of injury.
36. The Handbook specifically does not recommend the following:
a. The use of local anesthetic injections if they jeopardize the ability

of the student-athlete to protect himself or herself from injury.
F. DAI’JA’S TREATMENT AND PROGNOSIS
37. After her knee injury, Dai’Ja was advised by Dr. Baker to immediately begin steroid
shots as well as fluid drains, which continued to an astonishing number throughout the 2017-2018
season. Dai’Ja relied on Defendant SMU and Defendant Dr. John Baker’s expertise in the field
and began steroid shot treatment and fluid draining immediately.
38. Throughout the remainder of the season, Dai’Ja received injections of local
anesthetics and corticosteroids from Dr. Baker– SMU’s team physicians. These injections were
2
2014-2015 NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook, Guideline 2M, The Use of Local Anesthetics

given before the games. Dai’Ja received injections every 2 weeks before practices for the entirety
of the season. All Defendants (SMU, the SMU Board, Coach Travis Mays, and others) knew,
supervised, and/or approved of the injections.
39. After the 2017-2018 season, it became apparent that surgery was unavoidable. After
getting an MRI in January of 2019, Dai’Ja discovered a significant percentage of the cartilage in
her knee was gone. Numerous orthopedic surgeons and professionals have relayed that Dai’Ja, a
young woman and active athlete with hopes of continuing her basketball career at a professional
level, will need a total knee replacement before the age of 40. Dai’Ja still suffers from a limp and
continued knee pain.
G. SMU’s LACK OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, OR PROTOCOL
40. Defendant SMU is a Division 1 NCAA university. Its basketball teams are
perennial powerhouses that strive for the national championship each year.
41. Upon information and belief, despite being on higher education’s biggest stage,
Defendant SMU lacked policies, procedures, and protocols that are crucial for the health and safety
of its student athletes.
42. Upon information and belief, these policies, procedures, and protocols include
safeguards against the immense pressure the student athletes receive from their team’s coaching
staff about return to play, medical treatment, physical rehabilitation, and mental and physical
wellness overall. The athletes are unable to voice their opposition to returning to play despite their
pain for fear of retribution or retaliation. If opposition is voiced, a player is automatically
disqualified, as in Dai’Ja’s case, foreclosing on their future as an athlete or professional career
prospects.

43. Upon information and belief, in addition, Defendant SMU lacked policies,
procedures, and protocols regarding the medical clearance to return to play as it relates to
orthopedic injuries such as Dai’Ja Thomas’s.
44. Upon information and belief, all policies, procedures, and protocols are called for
and approved by Defendant SMU, the SMU Board, and Head Coach Travis Mays.
H. SYSTEMATIC PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AT SMU
45. Upon information and belief, the SMU women’s basketball team implemented a
system in which a pattern of verbal abuse, pressure to return to play despite serious injuries, and
negligent medical treatment was prevalent and accepted.
46. This system was created by Defendant Coach Travis Mays, and supported,
enabled, and carried out by Defendants SMU, the SMU Board, and Dr. John Baker.
47. Several examples of this systematic misconduct occurred during Plaintiff’s time at
SMU. Upon information and belief, Defendant Travis Mays and several other members of the
SMU coaching staff pressured, harassed, abused, and humiliated many injured basketball players
in hopes that such manipulation would pressure the player to return to the court before being fully
healed, and despite not fully understanding the severity of the damage the player may suffer if she
returned to play. Defendant Mays went so far as to openly state this was his purpose with respect
to Dai’Ja Thomas, telling parents that he hoped she would eventually “break down so she moves
on.” This manipulative system was well known to Defendant SMU and the SMU Board.
48. In addition, upon information and belief, the SMU coaches prefer to keep the
diagnosing and treating of their players “in house” with the SMU team physicians. In other words,
it is only on the rare occasion that an outside specialist would be consulted. For example, an
orthopedist for a serious injury. The coaches believe that the team physicians can be easily

manipulated to clear their players to return to play while an outside physician could not be swayed
as easily. The systematic scheme allows injured players to receive subpar treatment for their
serious injuries, gave the coaches premature return-to-play decision when serious injury or harm
could be caused, and created an inherent conflict of interest.
I. DAI’JA’S POST-COLLEGIATE CAREER PATH
49. Midway through the 2017-2018 season, Dai’Ja graduated early from her
undergraduate studies at SMU. She hoped and planned to continue her education with the aid of
her basketball scholarship, pursuing a masters’ degree in kinesiology.
50. Dai’Ja worked hard to further and maximize the academic opportunities afforded
to her by her athletic ability – so much so that she graduated high school with honors, starting
college immediately thereafter with no break in between to allow her to graduate early as she
succeeded in doing. Dai’Ja also came to SMU with college course credit. Dai’Ja was the model
student athlete, pursuing every opportunity that a university such as SMU would want a student to
have. Nonetheless, after taking advantage of Dai’Ja’s athletic ability, SMU discarded Dai’Ja when
she “broke down” as Defendant Mays desired. SMU medically disqualified Dai’Ja without
attempting to rehab or red-shirt her to enable her to finish her masters’ degree, at a minimum.
51. Dai’Ja also intended to pursue her dream of playing professional basketball
overseas and if possible, in the WNBA.
52. On March 12, 2019, Dai’Ja underwent surgery to repair her knee and was informed
she had basically no cartilage. Due to the sub-standard treatment she received from SMU, and
playing injured for an extended period of time due to the pressures and abuses she suffered while
there, Dai’Ja’s knee is beyond repair. Her basketball dreams are dashed, and she has no future
playing overseas; nor for the WNBA. A reserve/futures contract is non-guaranteed, and a

basketball salary would only be possible to Dai’Ja if she could make the team. Due to her injuries,
Dai’Ja is no longer able to pursue basketball.
J. DAI’JA’S DAMAGES
53. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Dai’Ja suffered past and future
damages, including, past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages and/or loss of
earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering past and future mental anguish, past and future
physical disfigurement, past and future physical impairment, and past and future aggravation of
preexisting condition.
54. In addition, due to the breach of contract by Defendants, Dai’Ja has suffered losses
in value and losses in profits, including, but not limited to future career earnings.
55. In addition, Plaintiff’s injury or injuries resulted from Defendants’ gross
negligence, malice, or fraud, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a).
56. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees.
57. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this
Court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(b).
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. CAUSE OF ACTION ONE – NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE

AGAINST DEFENDANT SMU, DEFENDANT SMU BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, AND DEFENDANT TRAVIS MAYS
58. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all prior allegations as though set forth herein.
59. Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff as
the school and conference of higher education in which Plaintiff agreed to receive her education
from and played for on the basketball court. Defendants owed a duty to possess and apply the
knowledge and to use the skill and care that is used by a reasonable and prudent educational

institution/conference in the same or similar circumstances. Defendants also owed a fiduciary duty
to Plaintiff.
60. Defendants breached its duties and were negligent as it relates to the incident in
question. Defendants’ negligence, errors, acts, and omissions include, but are not limited to:
a. Negligently failing to implement or require procedures and/or policies on:
i. how to treat and clear to play student athletes for Plaintiff’s

specific injury;
ii. how and when to record, maintain, and retain medical

records for student athletes;
iii. how and when to refer/consult with specialists in specialized

medical fields related to Plaintiff’s injury;
iv. how and when pharmaceutical drugs, including local

anesthetics and corticosteroids, should be administered;
v. informing the student athlete of the risks of playing with

injury and the long-term implications;
b. negligent hiring, training, supervision of Defendant SMU’s doctors, athletic

trainers, coaches, and staff who were involved in Plaintiff’s injury;
c. negligently hiring, retaining, employing, and/or supervising employees

such as Defendant Mays that exhibited abusive and/or negligent practices;
d. Other breaches that may be discovered throughout litigation.
61. Defendants’ breaches of duty were with conscious indifference, malicious,
fraudulent, willful, reckless, and/or wanton.
62. Defendants’ breach of duty proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted
in Plaintiff suffering past and future damages, including, past and future medical expenses, past
and future lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering past and
future mental anguish, past and future physical disfigurement, past and future physical impairment,
and past and future aggravation of preexisting condition.
63. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

64. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ gross negligence, which entitles
Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a).
65. All injuries suffered by Plaintiff relating to this incident, past, present and future,
were due to the negligence and gross negligence of the Defendants, without any contributing
negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
B. CAUSE OF ACTION TWO – NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION,

SUPERVISION, TRAINING, AND MANAGEMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
67. Defendants employed Team Physician Dr. John Baker as well as Coach Travis
Mays during the incident in question.
68. The aforementioned individuals were unqualified to handle their duties and
responsibilities, generally, and as it relates to the incident in question.
69. Defendants knew or should have known that hiring and retaining the
aforementioned individuals would create an unreasonable risk of injury to members of their student
athlete body.
70. Defendants failed to use ordinary care in hiring, retaining, supervising, training,
and managing the aforementioned individuals.
71. Defendants’ negligence in hiring, retaining, supervising, training, and managing
the aforementioned individuals was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury and damages.
72. Defendants’ actions and/or omissions were with conscious indifference, malicious,
73. Defendants’ actions and/or omissions proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which
resulted in Plaintiff suffering past and future damages, including, past and future medical expenses,
past and future lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering past

and future mental anguish, past and future physical disfigurement, past and future physical
impairment, and past and future aggravation of preexisting condition.
C. CAUSE OF ACTION THREE – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

AGAINST DEFENDANTS
78. Defendants represented the following to Plaintiff:
a. Any injuries Plaintiff suffered would be treated properly;
b. Plaintiff’s health would be a top priority as it relates to playing

basketball; and
c. Plaintiff would not be placed in the uncomfortable position of being

forced back on the court if she were not fully healed from injuries
caused on the court.
79. Defendants made the representations in the course of Defendants’ business and in
the course of a transaction in which Defendants had an interest – recruiting Plaintiff for the school’s
basketball team.
80. Defendants’ representation was a misstatement of facts and opinions. Defendants
did not use reasonable care in communicating the information to Plaintiff.
81. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations when Plaintiff agreed to
play for the school’s basketball team as opposed to elsewhere.

82. Defendants’ actions and/or omissions were with conscious indifference, malicious,
83. Defendants’ misrepresentations proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which
resulted in Plaintiff suffering past and future damages, including, past and future medical expenses,
past and future lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering past
and future mental anguish, past and future physical disfigurement, past and future physical
impairment, and past and future aggravation of preexisting condition.
D. CAUSE OF ACTION FOUR – RES IPSA LOQUITOR AGAINST

DEFENDANTS
88. Defendants directly and proximately caused the injuries and damages suffered by
Plaintiff.
89. It was Defendants’ responsibility to properly care for and treat Plaintiff.
90. That the events causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff were of a kind which
do not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence on the part of Defendants.
91. Thus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable as a theory of negligence,
causation and damages in this case and appropriately pled herein.

E. CAUSE OF ACTION FIVE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY (RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR) AGAINST DEFENDANTS
93. The acts and/or omissions of Team Physician Dr. John Baker as well as Coach
Travis Mays were within the course and scope of that employment or within the authority
delegated to the aforementioned Defendants.
94. As such, Defendants SMU and the SMU Board are vicariously liable for the
negligence and gross negligence of the aforementioned individuals under the doctrine of
respondeat superior.
F. CAUSE OF ACTION SIX – ACTUAL OR APPARENT

AGENCY/AUTHORITY AGAINST DEFENDANT SMU AND SMU BOARD
96. At the time of the incident in question, Defendants either (1) intentionally granted
Dr. Baker and Coach Travis Mays the authority to act on Defendants’ behalf, (2) intentionally
allowed Plaintiff and other student athletes to believe that Dr. Baker and Coach Travis Mays had
authority to act on Defendants’ behalf, or (3) through a lack of due care, allowed Dr. Baker and
Coach Travis Mays to believe that their actions taken on behalf of Defendants were authorized.
97. Defendants held out Dr. Baker and Coach Travis Mays as having the authority to
act on Defendants’ behalf as proven by their following acts and/or omissions:
a. Affirmatively holding Dr. Baker and Coach Travis Mays out as having
authority to act on Defendants’ behalf;
b. Providing both with an office or offices within Defendants’ facilities;
c. Providing Dr. Baker with examination rooms within Defendants’ facilities;
d. Providing both with official school clothing to wear;
e. Providing both with official identification badges for security access to

Defendants’ facilities;

f. Providing both with access to Plaintiff and other student athletes before,
during, and after games, including during practices;
g. Expressing that Dr. Baker was the school’s “team physicians” on

Defendants’ website.
h. Failing to take affirmative steps to indicate to Plaintiff and other student

athletes that Dr. Baker and/or Coach Travis Mays were anything other than
agents or employees of Defendants;
98. At the time of the incident in question, Defendant Dr. John Baker was acting within
the scope of the authority granted by Defendants when he negligently treated Plaintiff.
99. Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant Baker
had the authority to act on the Defendants’ behalf. A reasonably prudent person, using diligence
and discretion in light of the Defendants’ conduct, would naturally and reasonably suppose that
Defendant Baker had the authority to act on behalf of Defendants.
100. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendant Baker’s authority.
101. As such, Defendants SMU and the SMU Board are vicariously liable for the
negligence and gross negligence of the aforementioned team physician under the doctrine of actual
or apparent authority.
G. CAUSE OF ACTION SEVEN – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENCE,

AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DR. JOHN BAKER
103. Defendant is an individual licensed to practice medicine in Texas.
104. Defendant owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to possess and apply the knowledge and to
use the skill and care that is used by reasonable and prudent healthcare practitioners in the same
or similar circumstances.
105. Defendant breached his duties and was negligent as it relates to the incident in
question. Defendant’s negligence, errors, acts, and omissions include, but are not limited to:


specific injury;




b. Negligently recording, maintenance, and retention of Plaintiff’s medical

records, including informed consent documentation;
c. Negligently failing to refer/consult with specialists in specialized medical

fields related to Plaintiff’s injury;
d. Negligently clearing Plaintiff to practice and play;
e. Negligently prescribing drugs to mask pain and seriousness of Plaintiff’s

injury;
f. Negligently prescribing corticosteroids on a continuous basis;
g. Negligently omitting risks and not fully disclosing to Plaintiff of playing

with injury and the long-term implications;
h. Negligently failing to warn of the risks of unreasonable harm resulting from

playing with Plaintiff’s condition before it was healed properly;
i. Negligently diagnosing Plaintiff’s injury;
j. Negligently violating the NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook relating to the

use of local anesthetics and corticosteroids; and
k. Other breaches that may be discovered throughout litigation.
106. Defendant’s breaches of duty were with conscious indifference, malicious,

107. Defendant’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted
109. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendant’s gross negligence, which entitles
were due to the negligence and gross negligence of the Defendant, without any contributing
H. CAUSE OF ACTION EIGHT – LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT

AGAINST DEFENDANT DR. JOHN BAKER
111. Plaintiff and Defendant Baker established a physician-patient relationship. Plaintiff
was a student athlete and Defendant Baker was the team physicians assigned to and that treated
Plaintiff.
112. Before obtaining Plaintiff’s consent for the treatment plan they implemented for
Dai’Ja’s condition, Defendants did not properly inform Plaintiff of the inherent risks and hazards
associated with such plan. Specifically, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff of the risks and
hazards associated with the use of corticosteroids and local anesthetics nor inform Plaintiff of the
risks and long term implications of returning to play before Plaintiff’s condition had completed
healed.
113. Plaintiff was injured by the occurrence of an undisclosed risk. Specifically, Dai’Ja’s
knee, including the cartilage, bone, muscle, and tissue deteriorated due to Defendants’ actions

and/or omissions, including, but not limited to the continuous use of corticosteroids and anesthetics
as well as the premature return to play.
114. A reasonable person would have refused the treatment plan if the risks and hazards
had been disclosed.
115. Defendants’ conduct proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in
Plaintiff suffering past and future damages, including, past and future medical expenses, past and
future lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering past and future
mental anguish, past and future physical disfigurement, past and future physical impairment, and
past and future aggravation of preexisting condition.
117. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ conduct, which entitles Plaintiff to
exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a).
I. CAUSE OF ACTION NINE– FRAUD BY NONDISCLOSURE

(FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT) AGAINST DEFENDANTS
120. Defendants concealed and/or failed to disclose material facts relating to the
treatment plan implemented for Plaintiff.
121. Defendants had a duty to disclose the information to Plaintiff because Defendants
had a fiduciary duty to do so as well as a duty pursuant to their physician-patient relationship with
Plaintiff.
122. The information concealed or not disclosed was material because it affected

Plaintiff’s health, well-being, and future. Specifically, Defendants concealed or did not disclose
information that the continuous injections given to Plaintiff would deteriorate her knee causing her
great harm. Defendants also concealed or did not disclose information that Plaintiff was not fully
healed at the time they cleared her to return to play.
123. Defendants knew Plaintiff was ignorant of the information and did not have an
equal opportunity to discover the truth.
124. Defendants deliberately remained silent and did not disclose the information to
Plaintiff.
125. By deliberately remaining silent, Defendants intended for Plaintiff to act without
the information.
126. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ deliberate silence.
127. By deliberately remaining silent, Defendant proximately caused injury to Plaintiff,
which resulted in Plaintiff suffering past and future damages, including, past and future medical
expenses, past and future lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and
suffering past and future mental anguish, past and future physical disfigurement, past and future
physical impairment, and past and future aggravation of preexisting condition.
129. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ conduct, which entitles Plaintiff to
exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a).

J. CAUSE OF ACTION TEN – NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
132. Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff. Defendant Coach Travis Mays owed a
duty to Plaintiff as the head coach of the women’s basketball team during the incident in question.
Defendants owed a duty to possess and apply the knowledge and to use the skill and care that is
used by a reasonable and prudent coach in the same or similar circumstances. Defendant also
owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff.
133. Defendants breached duties and were negligent as it relates to the incident in
question. Defendants’ negligence, errors, acts, and omissions include, but are not limited to:

specific injury;




b. negligently hiring, training, supervision of Defendant SMU’s doctors, athletic

trainers, coaches, and staff who were involved in Plaintiff’s injury;
c. pressuring, threatening, humiliating, and harassing Plaintiff to agree to play despite

not being fully healed of her condition;
d. medically disqualifying Plaintiff due to a condition caused by Defendants; and
e. Other breaches that may be discovered throughout litigation.

134. Defendants’ breaches of duty were with conscious indifference, malicious,
135. Defendants’ breach of duty proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted
VI. JURY DEMAND
139. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.
VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
140. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant
disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2.
VIII. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
141. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce
all medical records in its possession pertinent to Plaintiff Dai’Ja Thomas, including, but not limited
to its own records on Plaintiff.

IX. PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue citation for Defendants to appear and
answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following: actual
damages, exemplary damages, Prejudgment and postjudgment interest, Court costs, attorney fees,
and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled to.
Dated: February 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
By: /s/ Maryssa J. Simpson

TIMOTHY MICAH DORTCH
State Bar No. 24044981
mdortch@potts-law.com
MARYSSA J. SIMPSON
State Bar No. 24088414
msimpson@potts-law.com
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75219
Main: 214.396.9427
Direct: 214.396.9429
Fax: 469.217.8296
MICHELLE SIMPSON TUEGEL

The Simpson Tuegel Law Firm, PLLC
State Bar Number 24075187
Michelle@STFIRM.com
3301 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas 75226
Tel: (214)-774-9121
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Dai'ja Thomas Lawsuit Against SMU, Travis Mays

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dai'ja Thomas Lawsuit Against SMU, Travis Mays

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CAUSE NO.

DAI’JA THOMAS, § IN THE COUNTY COURT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

Defendants SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY; SOUTHERN METHODIST

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

forth in Rule 190.4.

2. Plaintiff Dai’Ja Thomas is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Plaintiff

resides in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.

3. Defendant Southern Methodist University (“SMU”), is a Texas corporation whose

Dallas, Texas 75205.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1

5. Defendant Travis Mays (“Coach Mays”) is an individual who resides at 421

9301 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75231.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

multiple defendants are forum defendants.

County, as well as the place of residence of Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2

a. Defendant Southern Methodist University is a private university in the

b. At the time of the incident in question, Defendant SMU employed the

i. Dr. John Baker (Head Orthopedic Team Physician for the

ii. Travis Mays (Head Coach for SMU Women’s Basketball).

blocks and 16 steals.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3

with 40 blocks and had two double-doubles.

second on the team with 31 blocks.

C. COACH TRAVIS MAYS

encouragement, and treatment recommendation of SMU and its employees—including coaches

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4

tense and fearful atmosphere amongst players.

conniving and fake.

meetings – it would strictly be confined to players’ behavior and personal comparisons.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5

negatively to future employers.

compete, you may as well kill yourselves.”

D. PRESSURE TO CONTINUE TO PLAY/INJURY EXACERBATION

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6

launched a campaign to get non-Mays’ recruits out.

practice to deal with her level of pain and request treatment.

staff’s abusive practices.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7

Mays’ clearly-expressed wishes.

to continue her education, as a result of the disqualification.

E. KNEE INJURIES AND STANDARD TREATMENT

corticosteroid therapy may be considered.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 8

b. Repeated corticosteroid injections at a specific site should be done

c. Corticosteroid injections only should be done if a therapeutic effect

d. These agents should only be administered when medically justified,

a. These agents should only be administered when medically justified,

36. The Handbook specifically does not recommend the following:

a. The use of local anesthetic injections if they jeopardize the ability

F. DAI’JA’S TREATMENT AND PROGNOSIS

and began steroid shot treatment and fluid draining immediately.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 9

supervised, and/or approved of the injections.

continued knee pain.

G. SMU’s LACK OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, OR PROTOCOL

of its student athletes.

pain for fear of retribution or retaliation. If opposition is voiced, a player is automatically

disqualified, as in Dai’Ja’s case, foreclosing on their future as an athlete or professional career

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 10

orthopedic injuries such as Dai’Ja Thomas’s.

H. SYSTEMATIC PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AT SMU