Song v. Turtil

Background

Jeehyung Thomas Song, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former psychiatrist, Dr. Lawrence C. Turtil. Song asserted claims for medical malpractice, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. His claims concerned psychiatric treatment from February through May 2020, Dr. Turtil’s alleged failure to provide appropriate care after Song ended their doctor-patient relationship, communications between Dr. Turtil and Song’s wife, and statements Dr. Turtil made to Connie Ritzler, a court-appointed evaluator in Song’s divorce and child-custody proceedings.

Dr. Turtil moved for summary judgment. Song did not file an opposition or a cross-motion after receiving two extensions and a warning that Dr. Turtil’s motion would be treated as unopposed. The court therefore treated the facts in Dr. Turtil’s statement of material facts as undisputed, while still requiring Dr. Turtil to support the motion with record evidence.

Medical Malpractice Claims

Song alleged that Dr. Turtil improperly managed his medications, failed to explain medication risks adequately, treated him for hypothyroidism outside the proper scope of practice, failed to evaluate him appropriately, improperly communicated with Song’s wife, and failed to provide aftercare.

Under New York law, a medical-malpractice plaintiff generally must prove that the medical provider departed from accepted medical practice and that the departure was a direct cause of injury. Except for matters within ordinary lay understanding, expert medical testimony is required to establish those points. Dr. Turtil submitted an expert report from Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum. The report concluded that Dr. Turtil’s treatment complied with accepted practice and did not cause Song’s alleged injuries.

The court rejected Song’s effort to use a self-authored report as expert testimony because, consistent with an earlier decision by Magistrate Judge Krause, Song lacked the qualifications required to serve as an expert. The court also concluded that expert evidence was necessary to determine whether Dr. Turtil’s conduct, rather than Song’s underlying condition, caused the alleged deterioration of his marriage, separation from his daughter, and inability to work.

The court held that Dr. Turtil made the required initial showing that he had not departed from accepted medical standards and had not proximately caused Song’s injuries. Because Song submitted no expert testimony or other evidence rebutting that showing, the court found no triable issue of fact and granted summary judgment on the medical-malpractice claims.

Defamation Claim

Song’s defamation claim concerned statements Dr. Turtil made during a telephone interview with Ritzler. The statements involved Song’s hypothyroidism, his taking more Zoloft than recommended, alleged physically aggressive behavior in 2011, and the possibility that misuse of thyroid medication could contribute to mania.

The court did not decide whether the statements were defamatory or false. Instead, it held that the statements were protected by privilege. The statements were made to a court-appointed evaluator investigating the parties’ mental health and making recommendations about custody and parenting time. The court found the statements pertinent to the custody dispute and concluded that public policy supported absolute privilege because the evaluator needed to investigate information relevant to the child’s best interests.

The court alternatively held that the statements were protected by qualified privilege. Song had authorized Dr. Turtil to communicate with Ritzler about his medical information, including examination results, prognosis, and treatment recommendations. The court found no evidence that spite or ill will was the only reason for the statements, or that Dr. Turtil knew or was highly aware that they were probably false. Summary judgment was therefore granted on the defamation claim.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Song claimed that Dr. Turtil’s communications with Song’s wife led to a police call, a restraining order, restrictions on visitation with Song’s daughter, and emotional injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety.

Under New York law, this claim required Song to show both a breach of a duty of care and emotional distress that was a direct, rather than consequential, result of the breach. Dr. Appelbaum concluded that Dr. Turtil’s communications were not an ethical violation or departure from accepted care and were intended to monitor Song’s condition or help protect Song and his family. The expert also attributed Song’s alleged injuries to Song’s own actions rather than to negligence by Dr. Turtil.

The court found no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about a breach of duty or direct causation. It granted summary judgment on the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Disposition

The court granted Dr. Turtil’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied eligibility to appeal without paying filing fees.