No worries. The whole thing was a mess.

If I knew anyone in the upper levels of the hospital, I'd offer them the gratis suggestion that it is time to go on a retreat, have some goodies and fruit smoothies, or brisket and whiskey, whatever floats the boat, and vow to never, ever discuss the case again beyond saying the matter is considered concluded and the focus for Integris is the future, not the past.

I think that idea is representative of a collective level of intelligence not realized in the sum total powers of all current Integris leadership.

Yup. An' they're gonna pay fer it . . . ag'in.

When does Integris have to pay the $1 million, whether if appealing or accepting the verdict?

A related question might be: What is the current interest rate being applied to the judgement while The Cirque de Clowns o' Integris continue to do their little juggling dance?

When does Integris have to pay the $1 million, whether if appealing or accepting the verdict?

They'll have to put up a bond on appeal.

Is that referred to, in the trade, as a "Hubris Bond"?

A related question might be: What is the current interest rate being applied to the judgement while The Cirque de Clowns o' Integris continue to do their little juggling dance?


During 2012:
prejudgment interest: 0.05%
postjudgment interest: 5.25%

source:
http://www.okbar.org/news/front/2012/01/12-judgment-interest.htm

http://newsok.com/integris-ceo-standing-up-for-what-we-believe-is-right/article/3645046

In today's Oklahoman, Integris CEO Bruce Lawrence spells out that they were right, despite the jury's verdict. Three quotes:

"It was never our intent to go to trial. We tried numerous times over several years to reach a mutual agreement with Brooks on how the $500,000 donation would be spent. We also tried multiple times to return the donation to Brooks through his foundation. He declined our offers and instead took us to court."

"...we are disappointed to receive an unfavorable verdict in light of the solid evidence presented..."

"We did, however, feel a responsibility to stand up for what we believe - and continue to believe - what is right."

So I ask: Exactly what were the many ways in which you tried to return the money, only to be rebuffed by Brooks? What "solid evidence" was presented, and rejected by the jury? Finally, in exactly what ways was Integris "wronged?"

Hubris. Epic hubris.

So . . . Is a possible TWO million dollar verdict now on the table?
(plus interest).

http://newsok.com/integris-ceo-standing-up-for-what-we-believe-is-right/article/3645046

In today's Oklahoman, Integris CEO Bruce Lawrence spells out that they were right, despite the jury's verdict. Three quotes:

"It was never our intent to go to trial. We tried numerous times over several years to reach a mutual agreement with Brooks on how the $500,000 donation would be spent. We also tried multiple times to return the donation to Brooks through his foundation. He declined our offers and instead took us to court."

"...we are disappointed to receive an unfavorable verdict in light of the solid evidence presented..."

"We did, however, feel a responsibility to stand up for what we believe - and continue to believe - what is right."

So I ask: Exactly what were the many ways in which you tried to return the money, only to be rebuffed by Brooks? What "solid evidence" was presented, and rejected by the jury? Finally, in exactly what ways was Integris "wronged?"

Hubris. Epic hubris.

At the trial stage, the fact that they offered to return he money would have been excluded because settlement negotiations aren't admissible in trial as evidence in most cases. It's likely the jury never heard about the various offers Integris made.

At the trial stage, the fact that they offered to return he money would have been excluded because settlement negotiations aren't admissible in trial as evidence in most cases. It's likely the jury never heard about the various offers Integris made.


I'm wondering how sincere Integris' offers were. In the Washington Post article that was linked to earlier, it said that Brooks: "...was eventually shown architectural drawings of a proposed center bearing his mother’s name." If true, that certainly implies that there was an agreement of some sort surrounding this donation.
The article also says that once it became clear that there would be no women's center named for Brooks' mother: "Brooks said he sent his accountant to investigate, but that nothing came from the ongoing correspondence. By March 2009, he’d asked the hospital to either refund his money or give it to another charity."

I'd be willing to bet that there's an email trail on this last one. Sounds like Integris didn't want to give the money back until they got sued. By that point, why should Garth want to help them save face in this deal when they'd already misled him and tried to keep his money?

At the trial stage, the fact that they offered to return he money would have been excluded because settlement negotiations aren't admissible in trial as evidence in most cases. It's likely the jury never heard about the various offers Integris made.

Midtown - Wouldn't Integris' lawyers or witnesses be able to say, "We offered to return the money but Mr. Brooks refused?" Lawrence's column implies that they didn't make an unconditional offer to return, but that they offered to return the $500,000 to Brooks' foundation. I'm sure that Garth asked that the money be returned to the original source.

Midtown - Wouldn't Integris' lawyers or witnesses be able to say, "We offered to return the money but Mr. Brooks refused?" Lawrence's column implies that they didn't make an unconditional offer to return, but that they offered to return the $500,000 to Brooks' foundation. I'm sure that Garth asked that the money be returned to the original source.

Nope. Any discussion of settlement negotiations is off-limits. That protects both the Plaintiff and Defendant. It protects the Plaintiff from having the jury consider the Defendant's crappy low ball offers as solutions to the case and the Defendant from having the stigma of having been willing at some point to admit liability. Also, it is in the public's interest to allow parties to have some confidentiality in settlement negotiations without having their settlement positions taint the trial evidence.

I am going to clear the air. There are no plans for appeal. The way I understand it there are set rules for donors that have been in place for years. They followed those rules. I have a feeling this issue started based off of someone in the organization thinking they could bend the rules because it was from Brooks.

If you look across the INTEGRIS system there is only one facility with a person's name on it and that is Jim Thorpe. Jim Thorpe was named under South Community Hospital/Southwest Medical Center's leadership before they were affiliated with Baptist. INTEGRIS was born after the merger of Southwest Medical Center and Baptist Medical Center. Baptist spent a good chunk of money bailing out Soutwest. They paid for the completion of Jim Thorpe Rehab and the 5 story plaza at Southwest.
All INTEGRIS owned facilities are named after the area hospital serves. Clinics and departments carry people's names. I personally think it's done that way to protect the brand image of the hospital just simply because you never know when a dirty little secret is going to come out on someone living or dead. It's easier to change the name of a clinic or department. In most cases you don't even have to do a press release.

Integris sent out an email to employees last month stating they they had decided not to appeal even though Bruce Lawrence believes that Integris was in the right.

Incidentally, this month they have started a huge campaign directed at employees asking them to donate to the Integris Foundation. Although there is no exact dollar goal, the executive management team was "made" to contribute. Interesting. James Moore and co costs the hospital millions of dollars, he basically gets a promotion, and then they hit their employees up for money! Nice.