Court filings provide details on Mercy, Pitt Development Group dispute

A clearer picture of the yearslong contract and whistleblower dispute between Springfield-based Pitt Development Group LLC and Mercy has emerged in recent Missouri court filings.

A 2023 civil lawsuit filed by Doug Pitt’s Pitt Development Group against Mercy Health Fort Smith Communities at first had the developer seeking more than $2 million in payment for building an Oklahoma clinic, a sum that Mercy disputed.

But more recently, the case became linked to allegations of blackmail and sexual assault, court filings show.

As of March 23, the case was settled, according to a hand-written court order issued by 21st Judicial Circuit Judge Stanley J. Wallach. He scheduled a case management conference for 8:30 a.m. April 14 in his St. Louis County courtroom. Springfield Business Journal reached out seeking the terms of the settlement from both parties. Mercy officials, through a spokesperson, declined to comment for this report. An attorney for Pitt Development Group and company founder Doug Pitt did not respond to a request for comment by deadline for this report.

The settlement of the 2023 case comes after court battles earlier this year in which Mercy filed motions to exclude certain evidence presented by Pitt Development Group from being used in a jury trial, which had been set to begin March 23, court records show.

That 2023 suit is separate from an ongoing 2024 lawsuit filed by Pitt Development Group against Mercy, as well as several of its divisions, in Greene County Circuit Court.

In the 2024 lawsuit, Pitt Development Group outlined much of the background of the long-running dispute: The company alleged it lost business building clinics after Mercy retaliated against Pitt Development Group for blowing the whistle on Donn Sorensen, a former Mercy executive.

The suit alleges Sorenson, a former regional president of Mercy, and John Farnen, a former Mercy vice president of planning, design and construction, told Pitt Development Group to pay $65,000 to Steve Warlick, who at the time was an architectural firm leader based in Springfield.

The money was termed “social capital” – but Pitt Development Group did not need Warlick’s services to build a series of clinics for Mercy, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

“PDG became concerned about Sorensen and Farnen’s reasons for wanting Warlick paid despite him doing no work,” the Jan. 25, 2024, lawsuit petition stated. “PDG then discovered a disturbing connection between Sorensen and Warlick that related to business dealings, personal dealings and the sexual exploitation of women.

“After PDG became a whistleblower and informed Mercy about Mercy employee(s) potential bribery, extortion and sexual assault of women, including those below the age of 18, involving Mercy employee(s), Mercy retaliated against PDG.”

Sorensen and Farnen both exited Mercy after Pitt Development Group reported the allegations to the health system, according to past SBJ reporting.

In a March 3 court filing, Pitt Development Group wrote in opposition to recent Mercy motions to limit evidence that would be presented to a jury in the case originating back in 2023. The company’s attorneys wrote that “the attempted extortion of Pitt Development came at the hands of Mercy’s Donn Sorenson, who was being blackmailed by an architect on Mercy projects named Steve Warlick.”

Attorneys for Pitt Development Group cited testimony from a woman linked to Steve Warlick whose deposition comments Mercy characterized in court papers as “irrelevant, both logically and legally.” But according to the development company, the woman’s testimony constituted evidence to back up their whistleblower claims. Pitt Development Group characterized her as a “direct witness” in a Jan. 28 filing.

Her testimony demonstrated “that such whistleblower complaint not only had merit because Warlick had leverage over Sorenson, but it also demonstrates the severe nature of the scandalous allegations Pitt Development was reporting,” Pitt Development Group attorneys argued.

In a Feb. 4 court paper, attorneys for Mercy moved to quash a deposition by the woman, noting “Mercy did not want to publicize these scandalous allegations – that threatened the privacy and reputational interests of all involved – in court filings without first a court order sealing such filings from public view.”

Reached by SBJ, Joseph Passanise, an attorney for Warlick, said in a statement relayed by a spokesperson today that “we believe statements in a pleading previously filed about Steven Warlick are inaccurate.”

Passanise noted that Warlick is not a party in the recently settled lawsuit between Pitt Development Group and Mercy and said the architect was authorized by those parties to work on Mercy clinics and receive payment.

“The salacious allegations ... are ludicrous, and Mr. Warlick adamantly denies any allegation of wrongdoing. This rhetoric is the stuff you see on the Lifetime movie channel.”

SBJ is not naming the alleged victim of sexual misconduct, whose name is disclosed in court filings, due to sexual assault allegations and the contested status of her testimony.

News of the reported blackmail of the former Mercy executive was first reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in an investigative article on March 29.

On Aug. 1, 2025, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published another investigation detailing reports that Warlick, formerly CEO of a Springfield-based architectural firm then called Bates & Associates Inc., faced accusations of sexual assault and renewed investigation by the FBI and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. The Post-Dispatch and KMOV, a St. Louis TV station now known as First Alert 4, both published interviews with the alleged victim in the case, according to past SBJ reporting.

Warlick has not been charged with a crime related to any alleged sexual assault, according to Missouri court records reviewed online by SBJ.