CJ-2026-1380 - Curtis Marten v. Integris South Oklahoma City Hospital Corporation D/B/A Integris Southwest Medical Center; Integris Health Inc.

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a man named Curtis Marten had just survived back surgery, was sent to rehab, then admitted to a hospital for follow-up care — and somehow, in the span of one week, ended up with an infected, gaping surgical wound so bad he needed emergency debridement, another hospital transfer, and God only knows how many more nights of screaming into a pillow because nobody at Integris Southwest Medical Center noticed anything was wrong. That’s not just a medical oversight. That’s a full-blown institutional facepalm.

So who are we talking about here? On one side, you’ve got Curtis Marten — regular guy, Oklahoma resident, recovering from spinal surgery like a champ until things went off the rails. He wasn’t asking for a spa day; he just wanted the basics: someone to check his stitches, maybe change a bandage, sound an alarm when his incision started looking less “healing” and more “zombie movie prop.” On the other side? Integris Health Inc. and its subsidiary hospital — big-name players in Oklahoma’s healthcare scene, fancy nonprofit status, probably with a mission statement about compassion and excellence on their website. The kind of place that airs commercials during Sunday football with soft piano music and slow-motion nurses smiling at elderly patients. You know the type.

Now, let’s walk through this disaster timeline. In January 2024, Marten gets spinal surgery at OU Medical Center — major league stuff. Post-op, he’s transferred to Emerald Care Center-Southwest for rehab. Standard procedure. He’s still got staples in his back, fresh as hell, but holding. Then, on February 13th, boom — back pain flares up again. Off to the ER at Integris Southwest Medical Center he goes. They admit him. This is now their patient. Their responsibility. Their chance to shine.

But instead of shining? They apparently hit snooze for a week.

According to the lawsuit, Integris knew Marten had a recent surgical wound. They knew he was high-risk. They even allegedly promised they could handle his care — which, by the way, is a legal landmine if you say that and then drop the ball. Hospitals don’t get to advertise competence and then ghost patients like it’s a bad Tinder date. Yet here we are. For seven days, Marten is under their roof, and somewhere between the coffee breaks and shift changes, nobody properly assesses his surgical site. No one follows wound care protocols. No one documents deterioration. No one does… well, anything, really, until it’s too late.

Fast forward to February 20th — discharge day. Marten goes back to Emerald Care. Three days later? February 23rd. He’s back in the ER — this time at Integris — with a full-blown infected incision. Not just “oops, looks a little red.” We’re talking surgical debridement levels of bad. That’s when doctors have to cut out dead or infected tissue. It’s not a fun time. He gets rushed to OU Medical Center — again — for what the filing calls “higher level care,” which is hospital-speak for “what the hell did you guys do to him?”

So why is this in court? Because Marten isn’t just mad — he’s alleging two big buckets of legal trouble. First: negligence — meaning the nurses, doctors, or staff at Integris failed to do the basic things they’re supposed to do, like check a surgical wound. That’s not rocket science. That’s Nursing 101. When you skip the fundamentals and someone ends up infected, you’re not just sloppy — you’re legally on the hook. And the second claim? Corporate negligence — which is where it gets spicy. This isn’t just about one overworked nurse forgetting a checklist. This is about the hospital system itself — Integris Health Inc., the big corporate parent — allegedly failing to set up proper policies, hire enough staff, or create systems to catch problems before they turn into medical horror stories. It’s like blaming not just the driver, but the entire car company for selling a vehicle with no brakes.

And what does Marten want? $75,000 — but that’s not the whole story. He’s asking for compensatory damages (to cover medical bills, pain, suffering, permanent scarring, loss of enjoyment of life — all the real costs of being failed by the healthcare system) and, crucially, punitive damages. That’s the “punish you because you were that bad” money. And yes, in civil court, you can slap a hospital with punitive damages if their behavior was reckless or showed “conscious indifference” — which, let’s be honest, letting a surgical wound fester for a week while billing insurance for “care” probably qualifies. Is $75,000 a lot? For a single hospital stay gone wrong? Honestly? It’s peanuts. One round of surgery and rehab can cost way more. But the number isn’t the point — the principle is. This is about saying: You had one job.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the infection. It’s the audacity of the hospital allegedly promising they could care for a post-surgical patient and then doing… nothing. Imagine checking into a five-star hotel and being told, “Yes, we have working plumbing,” only to find out your bathroom has been replaced with a bucket and a sign that says “Good luck.” That’s the energy here. Marten didn’t demand a miracle. He didn’t ask for experimental treatment or VIP status. He just wanted the bare minimum: competent monitoring. And he didn’t get it.

We’re not doctors. We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know that if you’re in charge of someone’s open surgical wound, and you don’t look at it for a week, you don’t deserve a “Most Caring Staff” plaque. You deserve a lawsuit. And while we can’t say who’s right or wrong — that’s for the jury — we can say this: if the allegations are even half true, Integris didn’t just fail Curtis Marten. They failed the entire point of hospitals existing in the first place.

Also — side note — his lawyer’s email is fightingelderabuse.com. And while Marten isn’t necessarily elderly, that vibe? That righteous, slightly dramatic, I will burn the system down for one forgotten bandage change energy? We’re here for it. Bring the receipts. Bring the debridement records. Bring the wound logs. And for the love of all that is sterile, somebody check the incision next time.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jessica Foster

Smith Clinesmith LLP

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Curtis Marten individual
Rep: Smith Clinesmith LLP

Defendants

Integris South Oklahoma City Hospital Corporation D/B/A Integris Southwest Medical Center; Integris Health Inc. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence/Gross Negligence	Plaintiff suffered serious injury due to Defendants' failure to properly monitor and care for his surgical wound.
2	Corporate Negligence	Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached their duties to maintain adequate policies, procedures, and systems for wound care and post-surgical patient monitoring.

Petition Text

1,949 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CURTIS MARTEN, ) ) FILED ) DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 20, 2026 4:38 PM v. ) RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK ) Case No. ___Case Number CJ-2026-1380 INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER; INTEGRIS HEALTH INC. ) ) ) Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff, CURTIS MARTEN, hereby brings this cause of action against INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER; INTEGRIS HEALTH INC., hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants" and alleges and states as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Plaintiff CURTIS MARTEN is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and a resident of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff CURTIS MARTEN was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and, at all relevant times, was a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER; INTEGRIS HEALTH INC., is a domestic non-profit corporation doing business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Defendant managed, operated, supervised and/or staffed INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER, where CURTIS MARTEN was patient in 2024. 4. Defendant INTEGRIS HEALTH INC. is a domestic non-profit corporation doing business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Defendant managed, operated, supervised and/or staffed INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER, where CURTIS MARTEN was treated in 2024. 5. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and thus jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. 6. Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000. Factual Background 7. On February 13th, 2024, CURTIS MARTEN was admitted to INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER. CURTIS MARTEN was a patient at INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER ("INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST"), at all relevant times as alleged herein. At all relevant times, INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST provided caregivers and related services to assist CURTIS MARTEN with his activities of daily living. INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST was managed, operated, supervised and/or staffed by Defendants INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER; INTEGRIS HEALTH INC. 8. Defendant INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST knew of the existence of these conditions, knew of the increased risks associated with these conditions, and represented to Plaintiff that it was able, knowledgeable, and sufficiently staffed to adequately care for CURTIS MARTEN’s conditions. Plaintiff relied on this representation in selecting Defendants as health care providers to care for CURTIS MARTEN. 9. Defendants formulated and/or were required to formulate various Focus Plans (Care Plans) to account for CURTIS MARTEN’s specifically identified conditions and potential complications related to his condition at admission, and any ensuing conditions that developed or would develop during his residence. 10. Further, knowing that CURTIS MARTEN would need special care and assistance in his activities of daily living, INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST admitted CURTIS MARTEN into their hospital and under its care, and further represented to the Plaintiff and indicated that Defendants’ hospital and services were equipped to meet his needs. Plaintiff relied on Defendants’ representation when choosing a hospital and health service to provide appropriate care based upon his conditions. 11. Defendants INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST provided what Plaintiffs believed and understood was proper nursing care and ongoing assessments of CURTIS MARTEN. It was further Plaintiffs’ belief and understanding that Defendants were providing proper medical oversight and care through properly trained and qualified individuals to assure that CURTIS MARTEN was safe and properly cared for at all relevant times. 12. Despite these representations, Defendants failed to properly monitor and care for CURTIS MARTEN which led to serious injury, as described supra. 13. In January 2024, CURTIS MARTEN was admitted to Oklahoma University Medical Center for back pain and related symptoms. CURTIS MARTEN underwent spinal surgery at OU Medical Center in January 2024. Following his surgery, CURTIS MARTEN was admitted to Emerald Care Center-Southwest for post-surgical rehabilitation and skilled nursing care. At the time of admission to Emerald Care Center, CURTIS MARTEN had surgical staples and sutures from his recent spinal surgery. 14. On or about February 13, 2024, CURTIS MARTEN was transported to Defendant INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER's emergency department for treatment of back pain. 15. CURTIS MARTEN was admitted to INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER for treatment related to back pain and related conditions. 16. CURTIS MARTEN remained hospitalized at INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER for approximately one week in mid-February 2024. 17. Defendants knew of the existence of CURTIS MARTEN's recent spinal surgery and surgical wound, knew of the increased risks associated with post-surgical wound care, and represented to Plaintiff that it was able, knowledgeable, and sufficiently staffed to adequately care for CURTIS MARTEN's conditions. Plaintiff relied on this representation in selecting Defendants as health care providers to care for CURTIS MARTEN. 18. Defendants had a duty to provide proper medical and nursing care to CURTIS MARTEN including but not limited to proper assessment and monitoring of CURTIS MARTEN's surgical wound, maintaining appropriate wound care protocols, preventing wound complications, and recognizing and responding to signs of wound deterioration. 19. Despite these duties, Defendants failed to properly monitor and care for CURTIS MARTEN's surgical wound which led to serious injury, as described infra. 20. On or about February 20, 2024, CURTIS MARTEN was discharged from INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER and readmitted to Emerald Care Center-Southwest. 21. On or about February 23, 2024, CURTIS MARTEN was transferred to INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER's emergency department where he was diagnosed with an infected surgical incision. 22. CURTIS MARTEN was subsequently transferred to OU Medical Center for higher level care. 23. During CURTIS MARTEN's treatment by INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST, Plaintiff relied on Defendants' representations and it was his belief and understanding that CURTIS MARTEN was being properly cared for by all Defendants at all times. However, based upon Defendants' negligence and other tortious misconduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered substantial injury and damages including CURTIS MARTEN's pain and suffering. Count I - Negligence/Gross Negligence 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 25. Defendants had a duty to provide safe and appropriate medical care for CURTIS MARTEN including but not limited to proper nursing and medical care while a patient at INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER. 26. Defendants wholly failed in this regard, resulting in CURTIS MARTEN's development of surgical wound dehiscence and deep infection, and resulting in CURTIS MARTEN's pain and suffering. 27. Defendants knew or should have known that the care being provided to CURTIS MARTEN was inadequate and exposed CURTIS MARTEN to dangerous conditions. 28. More particularly, Defendants' negligence included but was not limited to the following: a. failing to properly assess and monitor CURTIS MARTEN's surgical wound during his hospitalization; b. failing to implement appropriate wound care protocols to prevent dehiscence and infection of CURTIS MARTEN's surgical incision; c. failing to recognize and document signs of wound deterioration that developed during CURTIS MARTEN's hospitalization; d. failing to timely intervene and provide appropriate treatment when CURTIS MARTEN's surgical wound began to deteriorate; 29. CURTIS MARTEN’s injuries, pain, suffering, and permanent injury were a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions set forth above, of all Defendants operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such wrongful acts or omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, were direct and proximate causes of the damages described more fully herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law. Count II – Corporate Negligence 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 31. Defendant INTEGRIS HEALTH, INC. and INTEGRIS SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A INTEGRIS SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER owed independent duties to CURTIS MARTEN to maintain adequate policies, procedures, protocols, and systems for wound care and post-surgical patient monitoring. 32. Defendants breached these duties by failing to implement and enforce adequate wound assessment protocols; failing to provide adequate staffing for post-surgical patient monitoring; failing to ensure proper documentation of wound status; and failing to maintain systems to identify and respond to wound complications. 33. These corporate failures were the direct and proximate cause of CURTIS MARTEN's injuries and damages. 34. CURTIS MARTEN's injuries, pain, suffering, and permanent injury were a direct and proximate result of the corporate failures set forth above, of all Defendants operating singularly or in combination. Furthermore, Plaintiff would show that such wrongful acts or omissions set forth above, operating singularly or in combination, were direct and proximate causes of the damages described more fully herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, actual and punitive damages described below, which are incorporated herein for purposes of this Count, plus cost of suit, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law. Compensatory, Actual and Punitive Damages 35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of Defendants as set forth above, CURTIS MARTEN suffered mental anguish, pain, suffering, physical injuries, extreme physical impairment and other complications and injuries. 37. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, CURTIS MARTEN required emergency medical attention, surgical debridement, extended hospitalization, prolonged rehabilitation, and incurred liability to pay reasonable and necessary charges for such. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the previously alleged conduct, all of which was negligent, grossly negligent, willful and wanton, outrageous, reckless, malicious, intentional, and/or threatening to human life, CURTIS MARTEN was caused to endure pain, suffering, and permanent injury. Indeed, CURTIS MARTEN suffered personal injury including pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, extreme physical impairment, permanent scarring and disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. 39. The scope and severity of Defendants' consciously indifferent actions with regard to the welfare and safety of patients such as CURTIS MARTEN constitute gross negligence, willful, wanton, oppressive, reckless, malicious and/or intentional misconduct as such terms are understood in law. 40. Such conduct was undertaken by Defendants without regard to the health and safety consequences to those patients, such as CURTIS MARTEN, entrusted to their care. Moreover, such conduct evidences such little regard for their duties of care, good faith, and fidelity owed to CURTIS MARTEN as to raise a reasonable belief that the acts and omissions by Defendants set forth above were the result of conscious, willful, malicious, and intentional conduct for CURTIS MARTEN's rights and welfare for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. 41. Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendants for all compensatory, actual and punitive damages which the law allows and which the Court and which the Jury deems just and fair under the facts of this case, plus costs of suit, and any other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law. 42. Pursuant to the general rules of pleading, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008, Plaintiff asserts that the amount sought as damages for claims set forth herein is in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants as follows: For judgment against all Defendants for actual and compensatory damages for the injuries to CURTIS MARTEN, including but not limited to damages for physical injuries, mental pain and anguish, loss of enjoyment, permanent scarring and disfigurement, and expenses for medical care and treatment, all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; b. For judgment against all Defendants for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; c. For judgment against all Defendants for prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs of suit; and d. For such other relief as may be just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, SMITH CLINESMITH LLP BY:/s/ Jessica Foster Jessica Foster State Bar No. 32363 325 N. St. Paul, 29th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201 214-953-1900 Telephone 214-953-1901 Facsimile [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF