Date: 10-16-2024

Case Style:

Jordan Nissensohn v. Chartercare Home Health Services, a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center, et al.

Case Number: PC-12-62320

Judge: Richard D. Raspallo

Court: Superior Court Providence County Rhode Island

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best * Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best * Lawyer Directory

Description:

Providence, Rhode Island, personal injury intentional infliction of emotional distress lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Michael Nissensohn, M.D., began working for UMG as a gastroenterologist in 2003. His employment was governed by a Physician Employment Agreement with UMG. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff was "employed on a full-time basis actively to practice medicine, provide medical education and/or conduct biomedical research on behalf of [UMG] * * *." He was required to devote "[forty] hours per week of clinical patient hours inclusive of teaching and administrative activities."

During plaintiff’s tenure, he was supervised by Dr. Epstein, the head of the gastroenterology division. The plaintiff shared teaching responsibilities with the other doctors in gastroenterology. To offset the burden of these responsibilities, Dr. Epstein secured administrative money from the hospital each year with the understanding that the gastroenterology doctors would split this so-called "teaching money" between the four of them. Nevertheless, from "almost day one," plaintiff took issue with the discrepancies between the amount of "teaching money" that Dr. Epstein promised and the amount that plaintiff actually received.

The plaintiff further clashed with Dr. Epstein when he requested a brief leave of absence from work. The plaintiff was depressed and told Dr. Epstein that, "[i]f I don’t get better, I am going to McLean Hospital."2 Subsequently, a rumor spread that plaintiff had attempted suicide and had been involuntarily committed to McLean Hospital.3 The plaintiff was informed that the rumor originated in the UMG endoscopy unit. At this time, plaintiff suspected that Dr. Epstein was in an inappropriate relationship with the head endoscopy nurse, Audrey Kennedy. Accordingly, believing that Dr. Epstein shared information regarding plaintiff’s mental health with Ms. Kennedy, plaintiff confronted Dr. Epstein. According to plaintiff, Dr. Epstein confirmed that he was the source of the information.

[306 A.3d 1031]

At some point during his tenure, plaintiff obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The plaintiff began showing doctors and other employees his shooting targets "to spur interest in the sport." He also began carrying his firearm into the hospital. Some UMG employees knew that plaintiff brought his firearm to work, but Dr. Epstein and Dr. Sepe, the Chief of Medicine, were not aware of that fact.

In February 2012, plaintiff met with Kenneth Belcher, the hospital CEO, and Dr. Sepe to discuss his unhappiness with Dr. Epstein. The plaintiff reported Dr. Epstein’s disclosure of his mental health information, anger issues, inappropriate relationship with Ms. Kennedy, and inconsistent promises regarding "teaching money." Mr. Belcher agreed that Dr. Epstein’s behavior was inappropriate and that plaintiff should have a follow-up meeting with Dr. Sepe.

On March 29, 2012, plaintiff met with Dr. Sepe and Dr. Epstein. They discussed plaintiff’s issues with Dr. Epstein. The meeting was productive, and plaintiff believed the matter was resolved. However, the next day, Jodi Siegelman, a physician’s assistant, who was supervised by plaintiff and Dr. Epstein, reported an incident regarding plaintiff. She reported to Merritt Brown, CEO of UMG, that about two weeks earlier, plaintiff "came into [her] office, showed [her] three carboard bulls eye targets with shots clearly fired into them and claimed that these were depictions of Dr. Epstein, including how they were supposed to be [his] head, heart, and eyes."

The plaintiff conceded that he may have shown Ms. Siegelman a target, but he denied telling her that the display depicted Dr. Epstein. Ms. Siegelman told her mother and another physician’s assistant about the alleged incident. She hesitated to relate the incident to anyone else because she was new at UMG, but she eventually told Karen Romano, the office manager. Ms. Romano subsequently informed Dr. Epstein.

Doctor Epstein immediately went to Ms. Siegelman and asked her to explain what happened, promising her that it would not impact her job. That same day, Ms. Siegelman sent her report to Mr. Brown, and Dr. Epstein informed Dr. Sepe of the incident. Doctor Sepe contacted the hospital and met that afternoon with Dr. Epstein, Mr. Brown, the hospital human resources department, and the hospital’s attorney to discuss the Siegelman report. After the director of human resources informed Mr. Belcher of the situation, he called the Providence Police Department and was advised that the hospital should take the report seriously. The police wanted to speak with plaintiff as soon as possible and agreed to approach him during his next scheduled shift, the following Tuesday.

The next Tuesday, April 3, 2012, plaintiff arrived at work and went straight to the endoscopy suite. He had his loaded firearm with him. At approximately 8:00 a.m., plaintiff was told that there was an emergency and that Mr. Belcher needed to see him. He stowed his firearm in his briefcase, put the briefcase under the desk, and went to the lobby.

When plaintiff entered the lobby, two police officers approached him and asked him if he was Dr. Nissensohn. When he said yes, the officers pushed him against the wall, spread his legs, and conducted a pat-down. During the pat-down, the officers found an empty holster. They asked him if he was carrying a firearm, and plaintiff responded no. The plaintiff directed the officers to remove his wallet so that they could see his permit. He falsely informed the officers that his firearm was locked in his car.

[306 A.3d 1032]

The officers took plaintiff to an office where Mr. Belcher, Dr. Sepe, and members of the human resources department were waiting. The officers asked plaintiff again if he had a firearm, which he again denied. The plaintiff was informed that the hospital had a no-firearm policy, and, at some point, one of the officers left to search plaintiff’s endoscopy suite for the firearm. The officer discovered plaintiff’s loaded firearm in his briefcase in his office and returned to the meeting. Mr. Belcher informed plaintiff that he was not allowed to return to his patients, and the officers escorted him off the premises. Later that day, Dr. Sepe sent plaintiff a letter informing him that UMG was placing him on paid administrative leave. Doctor Sepe further instructed plaintiff to contact the Physicians Health Program to set up an appointment. While plaintiff was on leave, Dr. Epstein performed plaintiff’s scheduled procedures and billed plaintiff’s patients directly.

The next day, plaintiff was served with a no-trespass order. He subsequently sent Mr. Brown an email asking him to lift the order. The plaintiff wanted the return of some personal items, including a laptop, which he had left in his office. However, plaintiff testified that, when his attorney went to retrieve his laptop, his attorney was informed that he was not allowed to have it back. However, after some delay, the laptop was returned.

The plaintiff maintained that during his leave, he kept receiving requests from Dr. Sepe for further psychological evaluations. He met with three forensic psychiatrists and a psychologist. Despite his compliance, the letters that plaintiff received in response were "unpleasant" and were interpreted by plaintiff as "being indicative that they were going to terminate" his employment. Two weeks after the April 3 incident, the human resources manager informed plaintiff that his leave was being extended. Subsequently, plaintiff resigned.

The plaintiff’s resignation letter provided that he would "resume and continue [his] practice at 50 Summerfield Street, Fall [R]iver, Massachusetts." The Fall River address was a temporary drop-off location where patients could send their records. His patients were informed of his new mailing address should they wish to make contact, However, several patients emailed plaintiff representing that they had received conflicting information about his whereabouts. Specifically, they stated that UMG or Dr. Epstein informed them that plaintiff was on administrative leave, that he was no longer affiliated with UMG, or that he had gone back to Fall River. The plaintiff did not reply to his patients’ emails because he was "too upset to respond * * *." He subsequently decided to "never get up and running again because of the trauma from [the] whole thing."

On December 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his original complaint against the UMG defendants as well as CharterCARE Home Health Services a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center; CharterCARE Health Partners, and Mr. Belcher (collectively the hospital defendants). On October 16, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted eight counts: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress against the hospital defendants; (2) defamation against Dr. Epstein; (3) defamation against UMG; (4) breach-of-contract against UMG; (5) tortious interference with prospective business relations and contractual relations against Dr. Epstein; (6) false imprisonment against the hospital defendants; (7) conversion against CharterCARE Home Health Services a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center, CharterCARE Health Partners, and

[306 A.3d 1033]

UMG; and (8) constructive discharge/violations of the RIWPA against UMG.4

Thereafter, the UMG defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In a subsequent bench decision, the trial justice granted the UMG defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to each remaining count of plaintiff’s amended complaint.5 The trial justice granted summary judgment as to plaintiff’s defamation claims because some of the alleged defamatory statements were made outside of the statute of limitations and the remaining statements were substantially true or were protected by a qualified privilege. Summary judgment as to plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim was granted because plaintiff’s teaching duties were voluntary and because plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages was required to be brought under the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, his claim, although styled as one for breach-of-contract, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to § 28-14-19.2(g) and § 28-14-20(a). The trial justice found that plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations failed because he did not demonstrate that Dr. Epstein’s comments to plaintiff’s former patients were causally connected to plaintiff’s failure to resume his practice.

Outcome: Summary judgment was granted as to plaintiff’s conversion claim because plaintiff provided no competent evidence that he, or his attorney, had demanded his laptop’s return. The trial justice granted summary judgment as to plaintiff’s RIWPA claim because plaintiff testified that he believed he was reporting Dr. Epstein for unethical, but not unlawful, conduct. The trial justice reasoned that the RIWPA requires a reporter to hold a good-faith belief that the conduct said reporter is reporting is illegal. Because plaintiff did not hold such a belief, he was not protected by the RIWPA. Final judgment entered in favor of the UMG defendants on October 21, 2021. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: