How have lawsuits involving Ben Carson’s companies been resolved and what were the outcomes?

1. Past medical-malpractice suits: settlements reported but details sparse

Multiple summaries and retrospectives note that Ben Carson faced malpractice allegations during his surgical career and that some of those matters were settled or discussed in press accounts, but the sources here are secondary summaries rather than primary court records and give few specifics on dates or settlement amounts ^{[1] [4]}. For example, an AMFS summary references "settlements with patients who alleged medical malpractice" discussed in The Guardian and other outlets ^[1]. A legal-firm blog catalogs alleged incidents — including claims of equipment left inside patients and an allegedly misinstalled shunt — but provides limited sourcing and no court judgments in these excerpts ^[4]. In short: reporting indicates malpractice claims and press-noted settlements, but the current set of sources lacks definitive court filings or settlement figures ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Carson Group employment suit: plaintiff alleges discrimination and retaliation

More recent, detailed coverage surrounds Mary Kate Gulick, the former chief marketing officer of Carson Group, who sued the firm alleging discrimination and retaliation related to how the company handled a sexual-assault complaint ^{[5] [2]}. Reporting by Financial Planning lays out the factual contours of Gulick’s complaint — her account of reporting an assault, conversations with senior leadership, and subsequent firing — and frames the suit as raising questions about succession and governance at Carson Group ^[5]. ThinkAdvisor and WealthManagement report that the firm has contested aspects of her claims, including alleging discrepancies in her medical records ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Litigation paused amid allegation of altered evidence

Carson Group moved to dismiss Gulick’s suit and later asked the court to pause proceedings after accusing the plaintiff of altering medical records to support her claims; a judge has stayed the case "given the seriousness of the allegations," according to WealthManagement and ThinkAdvisor reporting ^{[3] [2]}. Those outlets describe the pause as procedural — the judge is considering the firm's allegations — rather than a merits determination in favor of either party ^{[3] [2]}. Therefore, the outcome of this employment dispute remains unresolved in available reporting ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Conflicting narratives and institutional interests to note

Coverage reflects competing narratives: Gulick’s complaint portrays a company that mishandled a sexual-assault report and retaliated against her; Carson Group’s filings counter with an attack on her credibility and the integrity of her evidence ^{[5] [2]}. Journalistic accounts emphasize that the suit surfaced just before a leadership transition at Carson Group, which could influence how observers interpret timing and motives ^[5]. Readers should note the implicit stake both sides have: the plaintiff seeks redress and damages, while the firm has reputational and governance interests that motivate vigorous defense ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Other corporate links: Mannatech and D.R. Horton mentions, but not direct lawsuit outcomes in these sources

Sources in this set mention Carson’s association with the supplement company Mannatech, noting the firm previously paid a $7 million settlement in Texas over deceptive-marketing claims and that Carson’s relationship with the company continued after that settlement; however, the provided materials do not show Carson personally being a defendant in that litigation or provide details of any resolution directly involving him ^[6]. A research brief also flags Carson’s board roles at firms like D.R. Horton and Sinclair and notes those companies have faced lawsuits ^[7], but available reporting here does not connect specific final outcomes of those corporate suits to Carson personally ^[7]. Thus, these items add context but not conclusive legal outcomes tied to Carson himself ^{[6] [7]}.

6. What the available sources do not say — and what reporters still need

The assembled sources do not provide a comprehensive docket of all lawsuits bearing Carson’s name, precise settlement amounts for the malpractice claims as adjudicated in court, or final judgments in the Carson Group employment matter ^{[1] [2]}. They also do not include primary court documents, which would be required to verify timelines, exact claims, defenses, or any monetary awards. For definitive conclusions about outcomes, reporters need access to court filings, settlement agreements, or official statements from the parties — items not present in the provided excerpts ^{[1] [2]}.

Conclusion: Available reporting establishes that Ben Carson has been associated with malpractice claims historically (with press-noted settlements) and that Carson Group faces a serious, unresolved employment suit now paused amid allegations of altered evidence; however, exact legal outcomes and dollar figures are not provided in the current sources, and the record remains incomplete ^{[1] [2] [3]}.