OK Hospital vs. Garth Brooks: Guess Who Won?

What were they thinking?

Did the lawyers and leaders at Integris Canadian Valley Regional Hospital in Yukon, OK believe they could convince a jury to dismiss a fraud lawsuit leveled against the hospital by country music icon Garth Brooks,  a hometown hero trying to honor the memory of his mother? 

A quick recap for those who've spent the last week traipsing on the dark side of Pluto: Brooks was awarded $1 million on Jan. 25 by a jury that determined that ICVRH reneged on a promise to name a women's health center after his late mother.

Colleen Brooks died of cancer in 1999.

After hearing tearful testimony from Brooks, the jury determined that ICVRH acted with "reckless disregard." They ordered the hospital to return the $500,000 Brooks donated to in 2005, and pay him another $500,000 in punitive damages, the maximum amount under state law.

Readers seeking further details are invited to Google "Garth Brooks," and "mother" and "law suit" and sort through about 78,600 search results.

ICVRH President James Moore claimed in testimony that Brooks donated the $500,000 with no strings attached, and that the singer later asked that the money be used for a women's health center bearing his mother's name. The hospital wanted the money for other projects.

Brooks told the jury that Moore suggested naming a women's center after Colleen Brooks. "I jumped all over it. It's my mom. My mom was pregnant as a teenager," Brooks testified, according to media accounts. "She had a rough start. She wanted to help every kid out there."

Good luck with the cross examination, counselor!

According to the Tulsa World, the nine-woman, three-man Rogers County jury determined that ICVRH acted "intentionally with malice toward others." That sentiment was likely swayed when Brooks's legal team introduced a March 2009 memo from Moore to ICVRH staff which stated that "We may not deny Garth access to the money. However, we can sure as hell make him work to get it back."

It's not clear what Moore was hoping to accomplish by prolonging the fight. Did he want a drawn out and public legal battle with a deep-pocketed, living legend?

Hospital executives—more than anyone—should be well aware of the dangers of presenting a jury with emotional testimony involving human suffering and loss. It is one reason why healthcare-related suits are so expensive, why these suits often destroy reputations, and why defense attorneys try mightily to avoid jury trials.

Brooks is rarely seen without his trademark broad-brimmed Stetson. However, juror Beverly Lacy saw ICVRH as the black hats. She told the World that she voted for the punitive damages because "we wanted to show them not to do that anymore to other people who couldn't take them to court if they needed to."

Lacy's comments suggest that Brooks's victory was also a win for the little guy, because ordinary people believe they have no chance against an institution. The jury identified with the multimillionaire, world-famous singer, and not with the 75-bed acute care hospital. Institutions have money, but country singers have mamas, and so do jurors. 

At a press conference after the trial, Brooks called the panel "heroes." He said he was still looking for a way to honor Colleen.

"One day mom's name is going to go on the women's center right there where the hospital is. But that hospital won't be owned by Integris when it happens, I can tell you that. That's my dream."

Integris likely will not use that quote as a centerpiece for its next fundraising campaign.

This ill will could have been avoided. After all, Brooks was acting in good faith when he made the donation. ICVRH had years to resolve the issue behind closed doors in a way that would have made everyone happy, and which would have held the good graces of a very wealthy and influential donor.

A confidential resolution would have been vastly cheaper than the verdict and the mountains of bad publicity this has generated.

This was not a frivolous lawsuit. Brooks was not trying to game the system. It was clear to the jury that the singer believed he was honoring the memory of his mother. Frankly, $500,000 is chump change for a man who has sold more albums—89 million in the US alone—than any other individual in the history of recorded music. Whether or not he was in the right, legally, is almost irrelevant. Folks, he was fighting for his mama!  

In the end, this suit became a question of who to believe: Moore or Brooks. The jury believed Brooks.

ICVRH has not said if it will appeal the verdict. They should listen to the jury.