Judge to weigh in on hospital lawsuit - GreenwichTime

STAMFORD -- The lawyer for a group of women involved in a class-action lawsuit against Greenwich Hospital want a judge to uphold a portion of their claims arguing the hospital used deceptive and unfair trade practices that caused them to lose money.

But the hospital has asked a judge to strike two major counts of lawsuit from the record, arguing the plaintiffs do not make a "cognizable claim" under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA).

The lawsuit, filed in 2008 in state Superior Court, said the hospital violated state trade laws by ignoring Dr. Ian Rubins' drug problems to maintain the profitability of their specialized breast center.

A judge is set to decide whether the lawsuit should move to trial.

In a recently filed motion by the plaintiffs, attorney Sean McElligott argued why the lawsuit is valid, describing how the hospital allegedly mishandled Rubins' drug problems. Rubins, a prominent surgeon at the hospital, died of a heroin overdose in 2008.

"Even though the hospital knew that Dr. Rubins' chronic addiction issues posed an ongoing risk to public health and safety, it nevertheless solicited surgical candidates to the Breast Center by publicly advertising Dr. Rubins as a "top breast specialist," states the motion. "What is worse, the hospital intentionally violated Connecticut law by concealing its knowledge of Dr. Rubins' condition from state regulatory authorities in order to avoid embarrassment to the hospital and to maintain Dr. Rubins as a profitable partner in this lucrative business."

Despite that argument, hospital lawyers have said in earlier motions that the hospital was prohibited under state law from releasing information about Rubins' drug problems.

"The hospital's alleged actions could not violate CUPTA as a matter of law because the state's public policy did not impose a duty on the hospital to disclose Dr. Rubin's substance abuse history and treatment to his patients under the circumstances of this case," states a motion filed by hospital lawyers. "To the contrary, the state's public policy required the hospital to maintain confidentiality of Dr. Rubins' substance abuse treatment."

The hospital further argues the plaintiff's lawsuit attempts to find ways to make it apply to the CUPTA laws, but ultimately falls short of that burden. "Despite plaintiff's attempts to avoid the obvious through crafty pleading, the nature of the legal inquiry here is medical malpractice," states the brief.

Responding to those claims, McElligott states that the hospital cannot point to any state law that prohibited them from disclosing Rubins' drug habits. "The hospital has not identified a single statute or regulation that prohibited it from disclosing its knowledge Dr. Rubins' substance abuse to prospective patients," states McElligott.

Addressing the CUPTA claims, McElligott argues that the hospital made false statements in their advertising that caused financial harm, which makes the case different than a medical malpractice case. "Plaintiffs in this case have sufficiently pled a cause of action under CUPTA and therefore are entitled to develop and present all of their evidence to the allegations," states the motion.

In the new court records, lawyers are requesting oral argument on the matter. Both sides are scheduled to meet in state Superior Court on Oct. 19 for a hearing.