Roberts v. M.D.

Background

Brad Roberts and Stacey Roberts sued Puopolo M.D., P.C. The complaint asserts medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, negligent hiring and supervision, and loss of consortium. Brad received weekly telehealth treatment involving increasing doses of a GLP-1 medication from November 2022 through November 2023. The opinion states that Brad’s weight decreased substantially and that he later experienced serious physical and cognitive symptoms. Medical professionals offered opinions that the treatment departed from the standard of care and contributed to his decline.

Brad and Stacey later signed separate separation agreements with LifeMD. Each agreement contained a broad release covering LifeMD and its affiliated medical professional corporations, as well as claims including medical malpractice and loss of consortium. The defendant operates under the trade name LifeMD Western Patient Medical Care, P.C., and the parties did not dispute that it was an affiliated medical professional corporation of LifeMD. The plaintiffs filed this case after signing the agreements. Before discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the releases barred all claims.

Summary-judgment ruling

The court held that the releases were unambiguous and, by their terms, covered the defendant and the claims pleaded in the complaint. The court also noted that the plaintiffs conceded that the defendant could enforce the releases as a third-party beneficiary, meaning a non-signatory who is entitled to enforce a contract provision made for its benefit.

The court nevertheless found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Brad had the capacity to contract when he signed his agreement on March 9, 2024. Under New York law, the plaintiffs had to show that Brad was wholly unable to understand the transaction and that the other contracting party knew or should have known of his condition. Medical opinions and other evidence could support a jury finding in the plaintiffs’ favor on both points. Because a reasonable jury could find that Brad lacked contractual capacity, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on that defense.

The plaintiffs also argued that both agreements were effectively undisclosed medical-malpractice settlements designed to avoid reporting requirements. The court explained that such an arrangement could be unenforceable as contrary to public policy, but concluded that the existing record did not resolve the issue. The plaintiffs identified discovery they had not received concerning possible malpractice reporting, communications about a settlement, insurance notices, and related policies. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was therefore denied without prejudice to renewal after fact discovery, except as to the issues the court decided: the unambiguous scope of the releases and the factual question concerning Brad’s capacity.

Motions to strike

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike as moot because it did not rely on the challenged material in deciding summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ February 28, 2025, filing because it responded to the substance of the defendant’s reply and advanced new arguments without permission, making it an unauthorized surreply. The clerk was directed to strike that filing from the docket.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal following fact discovery. The plaintiffs’ motion to strike was denied as moot, and the defendant’s motion to strike the unauthorized surreply was granted.