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

Background

Ronald Broden sued Boris Rubinstein, M.D., M.P.H., alleging that Rubinstein, Broden’s former psychiatrist, improperly disclosed confidential information about Broden’s treatment to Broden’s parents.

Broden alleged that he began receiving psychiatric treatment from Rubinstein in 1999. According to Broden, Rubinstein socialized with Broden’s father at monthly dinners and discussed details of Broden’s treatment without Broden’s consent. Broden also alleged that, after their professional relationship ended in 2019, Rubinstein met with Broden’s parents in February 2020, discussed private details about Broden’s therapy and treatment, and showed them emails Broden had sent to Rubinstein. Broden claimed that the disclosures harmed his relationship with his parents, worsened his mental health, caused physical health problems, and led his mother to reduce his inheritance.

Rubinstein moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the allegations in the amended complaint as true for purposes of the motion and also considered the emails because the complaint relied on them.

Breach of Physician-Patient Confidentiality

The court applied New York law, which generally protects information a physician obtains while treating a patient unless the patient waives confidentiality. The court identified five elements of a physician-patient confidentiality claim: a physician-patient relationship; information relating to treatment or diagnosis; disclosure to someone outside the patient’s medical treatment in a way that identifies the patient; lack of consent; and damages.

Rubinstein did not dispute the physician-patient relationship, his acquisition of treatment-related information, or Broden’s alleged harms. The dispute concerned whether the information was confidential and whether Broden consented to its disclosure.

The court held that Broden plausibly alleged unauthorized disclosures to his father during the dinners and to his parents during the February 2020 meeting. The court also held that Broden plausibly alleged that the emails contained treatment-related information because they referred to prescriptions, treatment notes, and conversations about Broden’s mental health. The fact that some emails were sent after the professional relationship ended did not remove confidentiality from information learned during treatment.

The court rejected Rubinstein’s waiver arguments at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Broden’s online reviews allegedly expressed his opinions about Rubinstein but did not disclose treatment information. Broden also did not allege that confidential treatment information was discussed during the May 2019 meeting attended by his father. Finally, although Broden copied or sent some emails to family members, the court could reasonably infer that Rubinstein’s alleged disclosure of other emails exceeded the scope of any waiver.

Negligence Claim

The court dismissed Broden’s negligence claim as duplicative. Under New York law, claims are duplicative when they rely on the same conduct and seek the same relief. The court found that both claims were based on the alleged disclosure of Broden’s confidential treatment-related information and sought the same money damages. The court therefore concluded that the negligence claim did not provide an independent alternative theory of recovery.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Rubinstein’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Broden’s negligence claim, allowed the breach-of-physician-patient-confidentiality claim to proceed, directed Rubinstein to answer the amended complaint by November 28, 2022, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.