Nissensohn v. CharterCare Home Health Servs.
| Docket Number | 2022-42-Appeal |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2024 |
| Parties | Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn v. CharterCARE Home Health Services a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center, et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
1
Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn
v.
CharterCARE Home Health Services a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center, et al.
No. 2022-42-Appeal
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
January 16, 2024
Providence County Superior Court PC 12-6232 Associate Justice Richard D. Raspallo
For Plaintiff: James A. Ruggieri, Esq.
For Defendant: Jessica Schacher Jewell, Esq.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Erin Lynch Prata Associate Justice
The plaintiff, Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn,[1] appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court entered in favor of the defendants, University Medical Group (UMG), Alan Epstein, M.D., and Steven Sepe, M.D. (collectively the UMG defendants), granting summary judgment in their favor. The plaintiff asserts that the Superior Court erred by finding that: (1) the plaintiff did not engage in protected conduct under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act (RIWPA), G.L.
1956 chapter 50 of title 28; (2) Dr. Epstein and UMG's allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true or were made outside of the statute of limitations; (3) teaching was not covered by the plain language of the plaintiff's employment agreement; (4) the breach-of-contract claim was preempted by the Payment of Wages Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 14 of title 28; (5) the plaintiff failed to establish his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations; (6) Dr. Epstein's alleged interference was not causally connected to the plaintiff's failure to set up a new practice; and (7) the plaintiff did not provide sufficient nonhearsay evidence to support his conversion claim. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Facts and Travel
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.
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.
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....
To continue reading
Request your trial