CONTRACT FOR CARE · RIGHTS, CONSENT & GOVERNMENT POWER
Our Legal Case
A patient’s need for medicine should not become the pressure used to obtain a criminal admission. Examine compulsory disclosures, penalties for silence, coerced rights waivers, and the circumstances behind the signature.
Use the original agreement and policy sources for this record to identify the exact clause, its legal source, and the stated consequence. Preserve those facts before reaching a conclusion about a particular provider or condition.
Apply the constitutional and consent review to this record
- Government responsibility: Which law, binding rule, agency instruction, or public-provider policy requires the particular disclosure or consequence? Separate it from provider-added terms.
- Potential criminal admission: Identify the exact spoken answer, written history, certification, or explanation and the real criminal risk it creates.
- Penalty for silence: Record what happens if the patient invokes the privilege or refuses a rights waiver, including denial, discharge, or interruption of treatment.
- Consent and pressure: Preserve the circumstances of signing, severity of pain, accessible alternatives, and whether the patient could honestly accept the prospective obligations.
- Criminal-use protection: Identify legally sufficient immunity and limits on use of both the answer and evidence derived from it. A privacy assurance is a separate protection.
Read the precedents, evidence framework, clause review, and remedies and reform demands. The work develops a proposed constitutional challenge; applying it to a particular condition requires its facts and legal authority.
← Pain Management of Oklahoma in the Oklahoma directory
Practice information, source dates and updates
Physicians identified by practice: Jeff Halford, DO; Brent Henderson, DO.
Phone: 918-794-6008 · Fax: 918-516-3447
Email: Info@PMOMedicalOK.com
Locations: Broken Arrow, Sand Springs, McAlester, Sallisaw, Grove.
Contract: publicly linked medication agreement and clinic policy reviewed clause by clause; original packet revision and current signed/enforced version unconfirmed.
Verification: no direct practice confirmation yet.
Practice or institutional source · Source review: 2026-10-10. This does not independently verify current board licensure.
Update this practice’s information · Submit the current agreement
Practice and patient submissions are reviewed before public use. Historical agreements and material corrections remain versioned. Evidence and corrections standard.
OKLAHOMA · CONTRACT FOR CARE · FACILITY EVIDENCE
Pain Management of Oklahoma: agreement versus Oklahoma law
Publicly linked blank 11-page intake packet · Agreement printed page 5 · Policy printed page 6 · Evidence reviewed October 12, 2026
Document and status
Institution: Pain Management of Oklahoma (PMO). Primary document: public Patient Forms PDF (11 pages), linked from the practice’s patient portal. The URL includes 2024/01 but no signed or printed effective date has been confirmed.
Current-use boundary: The clinic currently links the packet, but its printed Broken Arrow and Sallisaw addresses differ from the current practice site’s location listings. This supports public distribution of the file, not proof that every term is currently used or uniformly enforced. No patient allegation is inferred from these blank forms.
What state law requires and what this clinic adds
Legal baseline (October 12): 63 O.S. §2-309I mandates agreements at defined opioid-prescribing triggers. 63 O.S. §2-101(38) identifies permitted subjects including prescriptions from other providers, refill limitations, monitoring tests, pill counts and termination procedures. This is a list of agreement subjects, not a statutory command to impose each maximum restriction. Oklahoma’s 2024 opioid prescribing guidelines offer nonbinding clinical recommendations.
| Clause | What the public form says | Comparison with authority | Evidence classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signing as a condition of treatment | Page 5 states agreement with controlled-medication policies is required to continue receiving treatment; failure may lead to dismissal. | Agreement requirement is statutory for qualifying cases; a provider’s additional conditions and consequences remain separately chosen. | Statutory trigger + practice implementation |
| Outside prescriptions | Page 5 prohibits seeking or accepting controlled substances from another physician, dentist, other healthcare provider, or individual; inpatient treatment or prior notification/approval are described as exceptions. | State law identifies restrictions on accepting other opioid prescriptions as an agreement subject; this document reaches other controlled substances and specific exception procedures. | Clinic-selected scope within a recognized subject |
| Lost or stolen medication | Page 5 disallows replacements of lost, stolen or destroyed prescriptions/medication. | The 2024 Oklahoma health-department guideline generally discourages replacements. It is guidance rather than an across-the-board statutory command. | State guidance + clinic policy |
| 28-day refill interval | Page 5 states a prescription may not be refilled until 28 days after the last prescription. | The opioid-agreement provisions do not impose a universal 28-day refill rule; legal dispensing restrictions and individual prescriptions may also apply. | Clinic refill policy |
| Urine, oral-swab or blood screening | Page 5 calls for routine drug screening under clinic protocol or treating-provider discretion. | Statute contemplates random specimen screens as a monitoring measure; no one testing method or interval is required of every patient by that definition. | Recognized monitoring subject; cadence discretionary |
| Use of alcohol, illicit or illegally obtained drugs | Page 5 restricts concurrent use and makes signs of misuse, abuse or diversion grounds for dismissal. | Medication safety counseling and monitored compliance are recognized; exact blanket consequences are not specified by the statute. | Clinic-selected conduct and consequence |
| Dismissal provision | Page 5 states that noncompliance can result in dismissal and reserves a provider’s judgment over ongoing treatment. | Statute directs the agreement to describe termination process/consequences; an actual termination may be governed by profession-specific continuity-of-care obligations. Two physicians named in the packet have DO credentials; osteopathic policy OSBOE-P007 merits application-specific review. | Clinic consequence; legal review of procedure |
| Appointment cancellation and $40 charge | Page 6 requests 24 hours’ cancellation notice and requires payment of a $40 late-cancel/no-show fee before another appointment is made. | No universal $40 appointment-payment condition appears in the reviewed opioid-agreement statute. Other payment law may apply. | Institution financial/booking policy |
| Primary care physician | Page 6 states each patient must have a primary-care physician. | No universal PCP prerequisite appears in the reviewed Oklahoma opioid-agreement statute. | Institution eligibility policy |
| Pill counts and custody | Page 6 states that medication may be checked by random pill count, possibly counted in front of staff. | Pill counts expressly appear as a permissible agreement monitoring subject, but these procedures are not mandated for every patient. | Recognized subject; clinic method |
| Visits with an NP or PA | Page 6 indicates follow-up appointments may be with a nurse practitioner or physician assistant. | Administrative/team-care scheduling condition; not an independently required opioid contract term. | Practice operations |
Specific questions for further verification
The most important outstanding document is the clinic-confirmed current signed agreement with its revision date. For the dismissal provision, determine what written notice, continuation-of-care procedures and referral practices are followed in actual cases. The Oklahoma osteopathic board’s 2025 termination-of-care policy describes a 30-day notice procedure for osteopathic physicians. Its application to individual providers and actual patient circumstances must be confirmed; listing termination as a contract consequence does not alone prove a breach of that policy.
Source documents
PMO Patient Forms (PDF), pp. 5–6 · PMO patient portal · 63 O.S. §2-101(38) · 63 O.S. §2-309I · 2024 Oklahoma guidelines · OSBOE-P007 · SB 1642 (effective November 1, 2026; not yet effective on this review date).
Corrections: Practices may supply a current dated form or supporting response through the practice-verification route. Patients may submit forms at Submit a Contract for Care; identifying information is not published without redaction and authorization.
Method: This record describes written source language and legal subject matter. It does not claim a practice is violating the law, that the text is enforced in every case, or that a specified clinical choice is warranted for an individual patient.