Skip to main content

issensohn v. CharterCARE Home Health Services a/k/a Roger Williams Medical Center

Unknown CourtJanuary 16, 2024
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractWhistleblower

Excerpt

The plaintiff, Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn, appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendants, University Medical Group (UMG), Alan Epstein, M.D., and Steven Sepe, M.D. On appeal, the plaintiff argued 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 untimely (3) the plaintiff's teaching duties were voluntary (4) the plaintiff's 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.The Supreme Court determined that: the plaintiff did not engage in RIWPA-protected conduct because he did not report a violation of the law the plaintiff's defamation claims abated upon his death Dr. Epstein's promise to pay the plaintiff additional teaching money was not supported by consideration the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim based upon UMG's failure to pay him for patient care was untimely under the Payment of Wages Act the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support each element of his tortious interference claims and the plaintiff waived any argument that his conversion claim was supported by nonhearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

What This Ruling Means

**Employment Case Summary: Nissensohn v. CharterCARE** **What Happened:** An employee named Michael Nissensohn claimed he was wrongfully terminated after reporting concerns at his workplace, which appears to be a medical facility. After Nissensohn passed away, his family continued the lawsuit on his behalf. They argued that he was fired for being a whistleblower - someone who reports wrongdoing at work - and that this violated Rhode Island's law protecting employees who speak up about problems. The case also included claims that his employer broke his employment contract. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled against Nissensohn's family. The judge granted summary judgment to the employer, meaning the case was dismissed before going to trial. The court found that Nissensohn's actions did not qualify as protected whistleblowing under Rhode Island's Whistleblowers' Protection Act. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights the challenges workers face when trying to prove whistleblower protection. Not every complaint or concern raised at work automatically qualifies as protected whistleblowing under the law. Workers considering reporting workplace issues should understand that whistleblower laws have specific requirements about what types of activities are protected and how reports must be made.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.