Health Law Daily Wrap Up, GENERAL HEALTH CARE NEWS—E.D.N.Y.: Patient alleging inaccurate provider notes failed to state claim against clinic, (Jun 9, 2026)

By Rebecca E. Hoffman, J.D.

The court determined that allowing the plaintiff to amend would not cure the initial complaint’s problems.

A client of Interborough Developmental & Consultation Center (IDCC), who filed a pro se complaint against the facility and several employees for violations of HIPAA, ADA, and RICO, failed to state claims under those statutes, and may not amend his complaint. The court found that the plaintiff did not allege he was denied IDCC services due to an alleged disability, and that IDCC is not a public entity. Therefore, he failed to state a claim under Title II of the ADA (Brown v. Interborough Developmental & Consultation Center, No. 26-CV-0527 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2026)).

According to the court, the plaintiff received mental health services from IDCC. One of the defendants, a peer specialist at the clinic, purportedly included false and misleading information in his notes about the plaintiff, which other IDCC employees could access. Further, defendant social worker “‘mishandled’ his case and ‘shared sensitive information with other IDCC staff members’ without his consent,” the court explained. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant therapist, who supervised the peer specialist and social worker, conspired with them to cause the delay of documentation and other support.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendants’ actions caused him emotional distress and other harm, and sought relief including the individual defendants’ termination and revocation of their licenses.

The plaintiff claimed violations of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court found that the plaintiff did not allege he was denied IDCC services due to an alleged disability, and that IDCC is not a public entity. Therefore, he failed to state a claim under Title II of the ADA. Moreover, as for Title III, the plaintiff did not state that the defendants did what they did to discriminate against him based on his mental disability. “[T]he alleged actions are within the scope of the[ defendants’] normal practice,” the court said. In addition, there is no private right of action under HIPAA.

As for RICO, the plaintiff would have had to show that the defendants committed a predicate act listed in the statute, such as extortion or mail fraud. Again, the plaintiff did not satisfy this pleading requirement, and thus there is nothing to show that racketeering activity occurred.

The court also concluded that permitting the plaintiff to amend would not be likely to result in a more successful complaint.

The case is No. 26-CV-0527.

Judge: Gonzalez, H.

Attorneys: Dane Brown, pro se. Companies: Interborough Developmental & Consultation Center

Cases: CaseDecisions GeneralNews HIPAANews NewYorkNews