PHOENIX — The plaintiff on the losing end of a court trial is accusing the opposing side of submitting a “false and forged” letter to the court. But the plaintiff is not making the accusation against just any attorney. The defendant in the case was represented by Tom Horne, Arizona's former attorney general and current superintendent of public instruction.
In a recent order, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge overseeing the case rejected the allegation of forgery, siding with Horne and his client.
But the plaintiff is not convinced. He plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.
It’s the latest development in a bizarre, prolonged “breach of contract” case that began in 2021 involving an influential business owner with a history of fraud who's been accused of using an alleged cancer diagnosis as justification for not fulfilling financial obligations. The only proof of her alleged illness she provided during the trial was a cell phone screen shot of a memo allegedly written by a Phoenix naturopath. The alleged author of that memo has since signed a declaration that would appear to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
“I just want the truth and I want a fair trial,” said Michael Myrick, a Valley real estate broker who brought the suit against Horne’s client.
O’Brien Claimed 'prognosis of likely death'
Myrick sued Bridget O’Brien for breach of contract in 2021. It was just the latest controversy surrounding O’Brien. As the former owner of the Valley’s largest children’s special needs therapy clinic, O’Brien has a history of nonpayment of workers, theft, and Medicaid fraud.
In this case, Myrick accused O’Brien of “breach of contract” in a real estate deal. Myrick’s firm entered an agreement with O’Brien to sell a property in the West Valley. Myrick alleged O’Brien used a series of “schemes and shell games” that ultimately resulted in O’Brien declaring bankruptcy, selling the property, and depriving Myrick’s firm of $150,000 in proceeds.
Part of O’Brien’s defense stated she was diagnosed with “metastatic breast cancer stage three” with the “prognosis of likely death” and therefore made decisions about the property to ensure a better financial future for her children. O’Brien said she underwent chemotherapy, radiation and a bilateral mastectomy at the Mayo Clinic over several years.
“Unexpectedly, I survived,” O’Brien stated in court records.
Naturopath’s Memo Contained the Title 'MD'
During the discovery process, the plaintiff asked O’Brien to submit evidence of her cancer diagnosis and treatment. During the half-day trial in December 2022, Horne and O’Brien provided just one piece of evidence: an image of a cell phone screen shot of a paragraph allegedly written by Phoenix naturopath Dr. Tracy Wooten.
The paragraph stated O’Brien had received cancer treatments previously described by O’Brien. It also stated Wooten provided holistic treatments to O’Brien.
During the trial, the plaintiffs raised two red flags: Naturopaths do not diagnose cancer and the original image provided by O’Brien falsely contained the “MD” title next to Wooten’s name.
Naturopaths are not MD’s.
Asked about the veracity of the memo, O’Brien testified during the trial that the “MD” designation in the electronic signature was a mistake. Asked why she could not obtain medical records from the Mayo Clinic where O’Brien claimed she was treated, O’Brien testified she called the Mayo Clinic to request records but the hospital told her it would take weeks or even months to produce any documents.
“Our argument was Bridget had an opportunity to supply all sorts of medical records that prove her unfortunate course of medical treatment, and she provided nothing. She should have to prove she was sick,” said the plaintiff’s attorney Gerald Shelley at the time.
When 12News asked Horne outside the courtroom why O’Brien was unable to provide direct documentation of cancer treatment, Horne said, “you have your facts all wrong.”
Wooten did not testify at the trial. When reached by 12News at the time, she declined to comment.
Judge Ruled in Favor of O’Brien
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Brenda Martin ruled in favor of O’Brien. She referenced O’Brien’s verbal testimony on the stand about receiving the cancer treatments.
“On balance, the Court heard credible testimony from Ms. O’Brien about her cancer diagnosis and treatment that provided an explanation as to why she intended the transfer of the warranty deed for the Dysart property to be conditional," Martin wrote in the 13-page decision. "NAI (the plaintiff) produced no evidence to suggest that Ms. O’Brien lied about having cancer and the Court finds it credible that Ms. O’Brien had health issues and wanted her children supported in her death.”
"The Court concludes that any failure to provide documentation regarding Ms. O’Brien’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer was justified and was not deliberate,” Martin wrote.
Ruling Was Disappointing To Others Following the Case
For several people who allege O’Brien has wronged them in the past, the judge’s decision was a disappointment. They followed the case closely in hopes O’Brien would, in their view, be finally be coerced to show first-hand evidence of a cancer diagnosis.
O’Brien’s actions dating back nearly a decade have left dozens of social workers in financial straits, as documented by 12 News. Around 2018, O’Brien cited the alleged cancer diagnosis as one reason why she could not pay contractors. Some of them told 12News they questioned whether O’Brien was actually sick based on their observations during that time.
“The hope I have is that she’s going to eventually be exposed for who she truly is,” said Michael Koehler, a former employee of O’Brien who is owed $74,000 after he won a lost wages lawsuit against O’Brien in 2021. Koehler has yet to have been paid.
Plaintiff Asks Judge For Re-Trial After Wooten Says 'Letter Purportedly Written By Me'
A new filing by the plaintiff in January of this year asked Judge Martin for a new trial, alleging the naturopath's memo was a forgery. The filing included a signed March 2024 affidavit by Dr. Wooten. It does not state specifically whether Wooten wrote the letter or not.
The Feb. 27 declaration signed by Wooten provided to the court, states in part:
“I have reviewed a letter purportedly written by me upon my letterhead… I understand the letter was used as evidence in the above-captioned case. I want to clarify the letter submitted to the court. Ms. O’Brien called my office on 11/23/22 asking me to write a quick letter for an unrelated case stating she was receiving naturopathic treatments from me, while she was receiving cancer treatments from other doctors and clinics. While I did treat O’Brien during the referenced period of time, I did not diagnose her with state 3 metastatic breast cancer… Further the letter incorrectly states that I am a MD. I am a NMD and use that designation in my practice. I never have nor would hold myself out as a MD and did not at any time authorize Ms. O’Brien or anyone else to use the MD designation for me or my practice.”
“The debtor (O’Brien) obtained a favorable ruling while using a false and forged document,” the plaintiff’s attorney, Shelley, wrote in the filing.
In Shelley’s view, Wooten’s signed declaration reveals fraud against the court.
“We have a statement from Dr. Wooten saying ‘I never authorized that letter’,” Shelley said.
Judge Rules in Favor of O’Brien Again
But the judge interpreted Wooten’s declaration differently.
In a Feb. 27 order, Judge Martin denied the plaintiff’s request for a re-trial.
“The Court finds no obvious fraud on the Court or NAI (plaintiff) and the Motion is accordingly denied,” Martin wrote.
Martin wrote that Wooten’s declaration actually confirmed facts, rather than contradicted them.
“The Court found that the Wooten Letter corroborated Ms. O’Brien’s testimony that she had been diagnosed with stage 3 metastatic breast cancer. There was no testimony or evidence presented to refuse Ms. O’Brien’s testimony.”
Martin also writes that contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, “the Declaration does not state that Dr. Wooten did not write the Wooten letter. Instead it states that she ‘want(s) to clarify the letter submitted to the court’.”
Martin also writes, “nothing in the Wooten letter suggests that Dr. Wooten diagnosed Ms. O’Brien with cancer. Indeed, it was made clear at trial that Dr. Wooten is a naturopathic doctor who treated Ms. O’Brien with naturopathic treatments that Ms. O’Brien sought in addition to the traditional treatments she received from other doctors.”
'The plaintiff has lost at trial and lost on appeal'
In Myrick’s view, the fact remains O’Brien has yet to prove she received cancer treatments from the Mayo Clinic.
Tom Ryan is a medical malpractice lawyer who reviewed records from the case. Ryan said the plaintiffs have a credible reason to appeal Martin’s decision.
“If in fact this woman had a double mastectomy, she would have discharge papers from the hospital. If she had chemo and all that stuff, she would have documents from the insurance carrier and healthcare providers,” Ryan said. “I really think this person should continue to be called out for fraud.”
Ryan calls the naturopath letter “hearsay” and questioned why Horne would have submitted it as evidence without verifying it was written by Wooten, especially after learning the letter falsely contained the initials “MD.”
“All lawyers, as officers of the court, have the duty to do a basic investigation of the facts before they put something into evidence. In this case it would have been a call to the naturopath to ensure that what she said what was said,” he added.
Myrick questions why Horne allowed the naturopath memo to be submitted for evidence in the first place. He believes Horne did not act responsibly as an officer of the court.
“I believe Tom Horne, as a member of the Arizona Bar, has an ethical duty to submit true and accurate evidence. He signed off saying that (evidence) was true and correct, saying that was actually evidence of a cancer diagnosis,” said Myrick.
In response to Myrick’s allegation, Horne tells 12News: “The plaintiff has lost at trial and lost on appeal, and he should read those decisions to understand why he lost. I have absolute certainty that the document in question is genuine and accurate.”
'Reasonable Minds Can Differ'
12News asked the Arizona State Bar about the ethical obligation of an attorney to ensure the legitimacy of evidence entered into court.
“This is a highly nuanced and fact-specific inquiry that can depend on the type of evidence or statement being presented, as well as the source of the evidence. Nonetheless, a lawyer’s general duty of candor to a tribunal is stated in Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct,” a spokesperson told 12News.
Shelley said although he believes his client should appeal the ruling, he respects Judge Martin’s decision.
“The first day of law school what they teach you is that reasonable minds can differ,” Shelley said.
Horne Defends O’Brien’s Claim of Cancer
Prior issues involving O'Brien involve the State of Arizona suspending her from receiving Medicaid payments in 2019 for evidence of forgery and fictitious services, she obtained $1-2 million in COVID bailout funds under questionable circumstances in 2020 and she pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft in 2021.
Over the years O’Brien has denied wrongdoing in regards to the various allegations against her or declined to comment to 12News.
As early as 2017, several people close to O’Brien told 12News that Horne and O’Brien were longtime acquaintances.
Horne told 12News this week O’Brien’s mother worked for him and referred him to represent Bridget O’Brien.
Asked if he has any reason to believe O’Brien faked a cancer diagnosis, Horne told 12News in writing, “No. She transferred ALL of her real estate property to Vickie (a friend and business partner). There is no explanation for that except that she was afraid of dying from the cancer, and made the transfer to be used by Vickie in case Bridget died to take care of Bridget's children.”
One month after the December 2022 trial, Horne stopped practicing law and was sworn in as school superintendent.
UP TO SPEED