Broden v. Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H..

Background

Ronald Broden sued his former psychiatrist, Boris Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H., for allegedly breaching physician-patient confidentiality. Rubinstein treated Broden from December 22, 1999, through May 23, 2019. In February 2020, Rubinstein met with Broden’s parents and showed them emails Broden had sent to Rubinstein, including emails referring to Rubinstein’s prescriptions of antipsychotic medications. Broden also claims Rubinstein made extremely derogatory verbal statements about him at that meeting.

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Rubinstein’s motion for summary judgment. Among other rulings, it held that Broden had not waived confidentiality regarding the disclosure of the antipsychotic prescriptions, but had waived confidentiality regarding six other topics discussed in emails he sent to family members. The court also ruled that Broden could not recover damages for physical injuries or lost wages and benefits for the alleged breach.

Motion in Limine

A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether anticipated evidence may be presented to the jury. Rubinstein sought to limit the testimony of Broden’s psychiatric expert, Dr. David Salvage, to whether disclosing the antipsychotic prescriptions breached physician-patient confidentiality. Rubinstein also sought to preclude similar testimony from Broden if the court limited Salvage’s testimony.

Broden’s counsel said Salvage would testify about the confidential nature of the psychiatrist-patient relationship, the heightened need for caution given Rubinstein’s relationship with Broden’s father, the possibility of emotional dependency in psychiatric treatment, and the importance of obtaining a written waiver before disclosing confidential information. Counsel said Salvage would not testify about whether Rubinstein should have accepted Broden as a patient or was ethically prohibited from doing so.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to rule on specific objections before trial because the parties had not identified particular testimony that should be admitted or excluded. The court nevertheless provided guidance. It said Salvage could potentially testify about the confidential nature of the psychiatrist-patient relationship and when a psychiatrist may be justified in breaching confidentiality. The court expected that testimony to be relevant to whether Rubinstein breached his duty and not unduly prejudicial or confusing.

The court did not expect to allow Salvage to testify about whether Rubinstein appropriately prescribed Klonopin, whether Rubinstein should have told Broden about a possible bipolar diagnosis, or how Broden’s conduct may have been affected by Klonopin addiction or withdrawal. The court reasoned that these subjects did not concern the specific alleged confidentiality breach or Broden’s damages, and that some of the proposed opinion about Klonopin did not appear in Salvage’s amended expert report.

The court also declined to exclude Broden’s testimony. Rubinstein’s request concerning “these issues” was too vague, and the court had not excluded Salvage’s testimony on any topic. The court indicated that Broden could likely testify about the history of his relationship with Rubinstein as background relevant to whether the disclosure was justified and to damages. But the court was likely to exclude testimony that it was improper for Rubinstein to treat Broden or that Rubinstein’s care, including the Klonopin prescription, was inappropriate.

Disposition

The court denied Rubinstein’s motion in limine without prejudice to renewing objections at trial. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion. Judge Briccetti did not make final rulings on the admissibility of particular testimony before trial.