Weiss Zarett Brofman | Sonnenklar & Levy, P.C. | Attorneys At Law

High Quality Services And Personal Attention

New York’s Highest Court Denies Right to Recover for OPMC Complaint Filed in “Bad Faith”

On Behalf of | Mar 22, 2020 | Articles, Publications

By David A. Zarett, Esq.Email David

State law provides legal immunity from liability to any person who reports physician misconduct to the New York Office of Professional Misconduct (“OPMC”). New York Public Health Law § 230(11)(b).  But this immunity is limited, extending only to those reports made in good faith, and without malice. As a result, some courts in New York previously held that a physician could bring a lawsuit for damages against the person who made the OPMC report, if the aggrieved physician believed the report was made in bad faith or with malice.[1] Other New York courts held that this private right of action did not exist.[2]

in Haar v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance, the New York Court of
Appeals (the State’s highest court) resolved the conflict among the
lower courts, by holding there is no private right of action for
physicians to sue a third-party (and others) for reports made to OPMC,
even if those reports are alleged to have been made for malicious or bad
faith reasons.

In Haar, a surgeon sued Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Company for damages, alleging a violation of New York Public
Health Law § 230(11)(b) on the part of the insurer for making a bad
faith report to the OPMC of false allegations of professional misconduct
(Dr. Haar’s Second Cause of Action was based on defamatory statements).
While OPMC’s investigation did not lead to any action against the
physician, he claims he suffered damages including costs (i.e.
attorneys’ fees) associated with responding to the investigation.

Haar argued that since the statute states that only persons and
entities making reports to OPMC in “good faith” are protected from civil
liability, it therefore implies a corollary private right of action for
bad faith and malicious reporting to OPMC. The U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, ruling there is no
implied right of action under Section 230(11)(b). Dr. Haar appealed the
lower court’s decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals then certified the
question of whether the statute created a private cause of action.

analyzing whether a private right of action exists, the New York State
Court of Appeals applied the following three-part test:

whether the [physician] is one of the class for whose benefit the
statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of
action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether the
creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative

The Court of Appeals determined that under the first prong of the test, the statute was intended to protect the public from medical misconduct by encouraging reporting, and therefore physicians are not intended to be protected beneficiaries. Additionally, recognizing a private right of action for bad faith reporting would be inconsistent with the provision’s purpose or legislative scheme to increase reporting since exposing complainants to liability may create a “chilling effect” on good-faith reporting.[3] As a result, the Court of Appeals ruled that the statute did not imply a private right of action for bad faith reporting to the OPMC.

Zarett Brofman Sonnenklar & Levy, P.C. is a Long Island law firm
providing a wide array of legal services to the members of the health
care industry, including corporate and transactional matters, civil and
administrative litigation, healthcare regulatory issues, employment law
and discrimination matters, bankruptcy and creditors’ rights, and
commercial real estate transactions.


[1] See Foong v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 305 A.D.2d 330, 330, 762 N.Y.S.2d 348 [1st Dept. 2003] (the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held in pertinent part that, “[p]laintiff had [an] implied cause of action under [two] provisions of [the] Public Health Law” including § 230(11)(b)).

[2] See Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v. New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 153 A.D.3d 768, 771–772, 61 N.Y.S.3d 83 [2d Dept. 2017] (holding in relevant part that the “[c]linic was not entitled to raise a claim against insurer and employees under [a] Public Health Law provision that created a defense to an action for civil damages or other relief”).

[3] See Haar v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 N.Y.3d 224 (2019).