PR vs. legal: breaking down Sutter Health’s TikTok crisis response

By Beth Cooper, JD / MBA 

Over the recent Labor Day weekend, a TikTok video went viral showing staff at Sutter Health’s Pesetas Urgent Care clinic in Santa Barbara (formerly under Sansum Clinic) mocking what appeared to be patients’ bodily fluids—captioned “Guess the substance,” “Are patients allowed to leave you guys gifts?” and “Make sure to leave your healthcare workers sweet gifts like these.” (Read more at People.com or Los Angeles Times.)

Healthcare organizations live and die by patient trust. When the TikTok videos surfaced, outrage was immediate (and rightly so). 

Within 48 hours, Sutter Health released an official statement:

“Sutter Health has terminated the employees responsible for the inappropriate and insensitive photos posted on social media. This unacceptable behavior is an outright violation of our policies, shows a lack of respect for our patients and will not be tolerated.

Protecting the trust of those we serve is our highest priority and when that trust is violated, we take swift action to address it. Within 24 hours of becoming aware of the posts, we placed the employees on administrative leave, and within another 24 hours, we terminated those involved as part of this ongoing investigation.

We expect all team members to live our patients-first mission and uphold the highest standards of compassion, professionalism and respect. We are using this inappropriate incident to reinforce our comprehensive policies with all our team members across the organization as part of our commitment to providing all patients with high-quality, compassionate care.”

When we advise clients through a crisis, evaluate such responses through both public relations (PR) and legal lenses. 

Here’s a breakdown from two of our pros as to what Sutter did right, what’s missing, and how we’d bridge the two perspectives.

What they did right

Both PR and legal agree Sutter hit some crucial crisis comms fundamentals:

• Timeliness: The statement was issued within 48 hours of the incident. Speed matters in a viral moment. Silence breeds speculation.
  
  
• Decisive action: They didn’t waffle. Administrative leave within 24 hours, terminations within another 24. That projects authority. (More on that later, however.)
  
  
• Firm condemnation: The words “unacceptable,” “inappropriate,” and “outright violation” send a clear signal that the behavior isn’t tolerated.
  
  
• Values reminder: Closing with “patients-first mission” and “compassionate care” reinforces organizational identity and anchors the statement in positive principles.

From a crisis standpoint, this baseline was strong. But both PR and Legal may shape it a little differently if they had the pen.

The PR perspective: what’s missing

Amy Roberts, VP of Communications and Client Services at KNB Communications, opines that while a PR pro knows that speed and discipline matter, tone and humanity carry equal weight. Here’s what could have gone further:

• A genuine apology: Saying “this will not be tolerated” is not the same as “we are deeply sorry.” An apology demonstrates empathy, not just enforcement.
  
  
• Acknowledgment of emotional harm: Patients weren’t just disrespected; they were humiliated. Addressing the embarrassment directly and communicating mutual disdain for the act makes patients feel seen.
  
  
• Concrete prevention steps: Policies are abstract.  Instead, spell out the tangible changes: banning personal phones in exam rooms, mandatory training on dignity and privacy, more active monitoring, etc.
  
  
• Support for impacted patients: Offering counseling, outreach, or some form of compensation would send a message of real accountability. Even a line such as “we are in the process of reaching out to affected patients individually” would strengthen trust.
  
  
• Encouraging accountability beyond Sutter: If you see something, report something. Inviting patients to report misconduct to professional licensing boards, including instructions on how to do so,  demonstrates transparency and a commitment to accountability that transcends PR optics.

In short, our PR would turn this from a defensive statement into an empathetic pledge of reform.

The legal perspective: what to guard against

Beth Cooper, JD / MBA, also a Vice President at KNB Communications, shares another viewpoint. While the public relations team cares about, well, relating to the public, legal’s primary concern is minimizing liability exposure. PR may advocate for sweeping apologies and promises, but legal is calculating risk. Legal would likely agree with much of the existing statement, and emphasize:

No explicit apologies
“We regret this happened” is safer than “we apologize.” (The latter could potentially be construed as an admission of legal liability.)

Policy framing, not legal fault
Positioning the conduct as an “outright violation of our policies” (as the statement does) is legally smart. It isolates the individuals, not the institution.

Avoiding guarantees
Promising “this will never happen again” sets unrealistic legal expectations. Better: “We are reinforcing policies to prevent this from recurring.”

Precision in facts
There are already rumblings online that not every employee in the TikTok video was terminated. If that is the case, then the current wording of Sutter’s statement risks overstating what actually happened.

• From both a PR and a legal standpoint, that’s risky. A better, safer formulation would avoid blanket terms like “all” and stick to what can be proven true today. Example:
• “Individuals confirmed to have violated policy have been terminated, and the investigation remains ongoing.”
  This protects the organization from later accusations of dishonesty, while still projecting accountability.

Careful around compensation
PR might want to talk about refunds or reparations; Legal would frame it as “support for patients” without implying damages or settlements.

The current statement already reflects legal influence: strong action, but carefully worded to avoid liability.

This is why PR people rush to get statements out before the legal team is awake. And why the comms team insists “legal is where transparency goes to die.”

How we’d bridge the divide

At KNB, we know the strongest crisis responses balance empathy with legal caution. Here’s how we would reframe the statement to serve both sides:

“We deeply regret that this incident occurred and that patients were made to feel disrespected. This behavior is unacceptable and an outright violation of our policies. Within 48 hours of becoming aware, we terminated all employees identified as involved, and the investigation remains ongoing.

To protect patient trust, we are immediately reinforcing our policies through retraining, implementing stricter device guidelines in exam rooms, and auditing compliance across the organization. Patients who feel impacted are encouraged to share their concerns directly with us or with appropriate licensing boards.

Compassion, respect, and professionalism are non-negotiable in our care, and we are committed to earning back the trust this incident has compromised.”

This version blends the best of both worlds: PR-level empathy and clarity, legal-level protection and precision.

Final thoughts

Sutter Health’s statement checked important boxes — timeliness, decisiveness, strong condemnation. But it had less of the human connection patients expect from a trusted care provider.

The lesson? In healthcare, crisis communications must serve two masters. PR brings warmth, empathy, and forward-looking reform. Legal brings caution, precision, and protection. And that legal protection isn’t just about shielding the brand; it’s about shielding the jobs and future of the many good employees who remain committed to compassionate care and deserve to keep working at a respected, trusted institution.

When PR and legal align, you don’t just manage a crisis—you safeguard patients, employees, and the future of the organization itself.

Final grade: B+