CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2025-1478

Kimberly A. Kelsay v. Robert Edward Mitchell, M.D. and Belle Medical Tulsa, LLC

Filed: Jan 12, 2025
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not your average medical malpractice lawsuit. This is a woman who walked into a plastic surgery center expecting a transformation, walked out with a permanent injury, and then—then—realized the clinic had actually promised her a money-back guarantee if she wasn’t satisfied. And yet, when she said, “Hey, this didn’t go well—how about that refund?”… crickets. Cue the lawsuit. Welcome to CrazyCivilCourt, where medicine meets marketing gimmicks, and someone finally decided to cash in on the fine print.

Kimberly Kelsay, a 58-year-old Tulsa resident with, according to the filing, a normal life expectancy of 20 more years (which, let’s be honest, is just lawyer-speak for “she wasn’t on death’s doorstep”), sought out cosmetic medical services from Dr. Robert Edward Mitchell and his clinic, Belle Medical Tulsa, LLC. Now, we don’t know exactly what kind of procedure she had—face, body, something in between—but we do know it was supposed to make her feel better. Instead, it left her with “significant and permanent personal injury,” which is a phrase that sounds way more serious than “I look weird in profile photos now.” This wasn’t just disappointment. This was life-altering. And it happened, allegedly, because the good doctor and his clinic didn’t exactly bring their A-game.

The surgery went down on April 28, 2023, at the Belle Medical facility. No fireworks. No celebratory champagne. Just a scalpel, some anesthesia, and, somewhere along the way, a series of decisions that Kelsay now claims amounted to negligence. According to her petition, the defendants—both Dr. Mitchell and the clinic—owed her a basic duty of care: the legal way of saying “don’t mess up.” But she alleges they did. They allegedly misdiagnosed, mistreated, and generally bungled her care to the point where she’s now dealing with lasting harm. Pain, suffering, medical bills, lost wages—you name it, she’s claiming it. And under Oklahoma law, if a doctor screws up and causes real damage, that’s not just bad Yelp review territory. That’s lawsuit territory.

But here’s where it gets delicious. Because Kelsay isn’t just suing for malpractice. Oh no. She’s also suing because—brace yourself—Belle Medical promised her a money-back guarantee. Yes. A money-back guarantee. Like she’d bought a questionable infomercial vacuum or a questionable online course on cryptocurrency. “Not satisfied? Your money back!” Except this wasn’t a blender. This was surgery. On her face or body or something—we still don’t know!—and now she’s permanently injured. And yet, the clinic apparently had the audacity to advertise a satisfaction guarantee like they were selling foot creams at a county fair.

Now, in the world of medicine, this is… unusual. Doctors don’t typically say, “If you don’t love your new nose, just bring it back and we’ll refund you.” That’s because human bodies aren’t returnable items. You can’t just slap a receipt on a botched facelift and walk into the front desk like, “Yeah, this wasn’t what I ordered.” But Belle Medical, it seems, either didn’t get the memo or thought they were so good they could afford the risk. Either way, Kelsay is holding them to it. She claims that as recently as January 12, 2025—just weeks before filing this lawsuit—the clinic still stood by this “money-back guarantee.” And when she asked for her refund, citing the very promise they made, they ghosted her. No refund. No apology. Just radio silence. So she did what any reasonable person would do: she hired Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, LLP—yes, like the TV show, and yes, they definitely lean into it—and said, “Let’s sue.”

Legally speaking, she’s making two big claims. First: negligence. That’s the standard medical malpractice angle—basically, “you had a duty to treat me properly, you didn’t, and now I’m hurt.” Second: breach of express warranty. That’s the fun one. In plain English? “You promised me this would work, or I’d get my money back. It didn’t work. Where’s my money?” Most medical lawsuits don’t have this twist, because most doctors don’t put their promises in writing like a sketchy mattress ad. But here? The warranty exists—at least according to Kelsay—and she’s ready to collect.

So what does she want? A total demand of $30,000. That breaks down into $10,000 for the negligence, another $10,000 for the broken warranty, and more than $10,000 in punitive damages—meaning, “punish them, not just compensate me.” Is $30,000 a lot for a permanent injury and a shattered trust in cosmetic medicine? Honestly? For a serious medical complication, probably not. Real malpractice cases can go into the millions. But for a money-back guarantee claim? That’s practically wholesale. If this were a lemon law case for a faulty used car, $30,000 might be steep. But for a botched surgery with lasting consequences? It’s almost… reasonable. Almost.

And here’s the kicker: she wants a jury trial. Which means this isn’t just about the money. It’s about principle. It’s about making sure Dr. Mitchell and Belle Medical can’t keep dangling “satisfaction guaranteed” like a carrot in front of vulnerable patients who just want to feel better about themselves—only to leave them worse off, physically and emotionally, with no recourse.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that a doctor promised a money-back guarantee. It’s that anyone thought that was a good idea. Medicine isn’t Amazon Prime. You can’t return a lipo job because the results “didn’t pop.” But if you’re going to dangle that promise in front of patients—especially older patients, especially those investing in self-esteem—then you better be ready to honor it. Kelsay isn’t asking for a million bucks. She’s not demanding the clinic be shut down. She’s saying, “You broke your promise. You hurt me. Pay up.” And honestly? We’re rooting for her. Not because every surgery should come with a refund policy (please, no), but because when you add marketing nonsense to high-risk medical procedures, and then refuse to take responsibility when it goes south? That’s not just negligence. That’s audacity. And if there’s one thing Oklahoma juries love, it’s holding slick operators accountable when they confuse a medical office with a retail store.

So here’s hoping Kimberly Kelsay gets her day in court. And if the jury’s feeling spicy? Maybe they’ll make Dr. Mitchell hand over the refund… in cash… while wearing a sign that says “Guarantee Not Guaranteed.”

Case Overview

$30,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Relief Sought
$10,000 Monetary
$1 Punitive
Plaintiffs
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 negligence Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in their diagnosis, care, and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, resulting in significant and permanent personal injury.
2 breach of express warranty Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their express warranty for the services provided to Plaintiff, promising a'money back guarantee'.

Petition Text

786 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA KIMBERLY A. KELSAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ROBERT EDWARD MITCHELL, M.D. and BELLE MEDICAL TULSA, LLC, ) Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-01478 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED Doug Drummond PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Kimberly A. Kelsay (hereinafter "Kelsay"), and submits the following Petition, and for her cause of action against the Defendants, Robert Edward Mitchell, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Mitchell") and Belle Medical Tulsa, LLC, (hereinafter "Belle Medical"), alleges as follows: COUNT ONE I The facts which give rise to this cause of action occurred in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. This court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action. II At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Kelsay was a patient of Defendant Dr. Mitchell while he worked at Defendant Belle Medical. That on or before April 2023, Plaintiff was a patient of Defendants. III Defendant Belle Medical is entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, which operates its principle place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Belle Medical purported to provide to the public medical services, including outpatient medical care. IV Plaintiff Kelsay came under the medical management, care, and control of the Defendants and each of them. During this time, Defendants, and each of them, were negligently or grossly negligent in their diagnosis, care, and treatment rendered to Plaintiff Kelsay. As a result of this mistreatment, misevaluation, lack of care, and negligence, Plaintiff Kelsay sustained significant and permanent personal injury. IV On or about the 28th of April, 2023, Plaintiff Kelsay had surgery at the hands of Defendant Dr. Mitchell at the Belle Medical facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. VI At the time of the negligence, Plaintiff Kelsay was 58 years of age with a normal life expectancy of 20 years. VI At all times relative to this action, Defendant Dr. Mitchell was an employee of Defendant Belle Medical and was acting on behalf of Belle Medical as a duly authorized agent. Thus, all of his actions or omissions are attributable to Defendant Belle Medical as a matter of law. At all times relative to this action, Defendant Belle Medical acted by and through its agents, servants, and employees you were acting within the scope of their agency, service, and employment. VII Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise ordinary care and attention. Defendants breached their duty of care by negligently failing to provide appropriate care for Plaintiff and the medical treatment Plaintiff purchased from Defendants. Defendant Belle Medical’s failure to exercise ordinary care and attention to Plaintiff was a direct cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Alternatively, Defendant Dr. Mitchell’s failure to exercise ordinary care and/or attention to Plaintiff is a direct cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. VIII At all times material hereto, the Defendants and all other individuals involved in the treatment of Plaintiff’s care and treatment were acting as the employer or agent (actual, sensible, or apparent) of Defendants. Negligence of these individuals is imputed to Belle Medical and Dr. Mitchell. Accordingly, Defendant Belle Medical is vicariously liable for the negligence of these so-called medical practitioners and other individuals who treated or cared for Plaintiff. IX As a result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, medical bills, lost wages, and to all other things under which the laws of the State of Oklahoma allows. COUNT TWO COMES NOW Plaintiff and adopts all allegations heretofore made by the Plaintiff in Count One hereof as if fully set forth herein. X Defendants provided a warranty for the services they provided Plaintiff. That on or before the 12th day of January, 2025, the Defendants provided a warranty for the work done by Defendants for Plaintiff promising a "money back guarantee". XI For sometime since Defendants making that warranty, Plaintiff made Defendants aware of her dissatisfaction with their services seeking a commitment on the warranty provided Plaintiff for the services. Defendants have not complied with this express warranty of their services. XII At all times relating to this warranty made by Defendants, Defendants acted through its agents, employees, and assigns. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for damages against the Defendants for a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and for their combined negligence and for Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for their breach of the express warranty. Further, Plaintiff seeks a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars as and for punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and all other relief to which she may be deemed entitled. Respectfully submitted, FRASIER, FRASIER & HICKMAN, LLP By: [signature] Frank W Frasier, OBA #17864 George M. Miles, OBA #11433 1700 Southwest Boulevard Tulsa, OK 74107-1730 (918) 584-4724 (800) 522-4049 (918) 583-5637 fax [email protected] e-mail
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.