Candelario v. O'Malley
1:23-cv-07144
S.D.N.Y.
Apr 18, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Plaintiff R.S. alleges that Defendant Prime Healthcare used tracking pixels on its websites to intercept and disclose patient information to third parties for profit. [lines="47-49"].
  2. The types of intercepted information include medical conditions, treatments sought, and personally identifiable information of patients, which was shared with Meta Platforms, Inc. [lines="57-61"].
  3. R.S. filed a putative class action on February 8, 2024, claiming a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). [lines="64-66"].
  4. Prime Healthcare operates numerous hospitals and outpatient locations across the United States, employing nearly 45,000 individuals. [lines="35-43"].
  5. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss R.S.’s complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim. [lines="25-26"].

Issues

  1. Whether Prime Healthcare's actions of intercepting communications through its websites constitutes a violation of the ECPA when it is a party to those communications. [lines="129-131"].
  2. Whether the crime-tort exception of the ECPA applies to the allegations made by R.S. against Prime Healthcare. [lines="131-133"].

Holdings

  1. The court held that Prime Healthcare cannot be liable under the ECPA for allegedly intercepting communications to which it is a party, and thus the claim was dismissed. [lines="149-150"].
  2. The court found that the crime-tort exception does not apply, affirming the dismissal of R.S.'s ECPA claim without leave to amend. [lines="196-197"].

OPINION

MICHELLE CANDELARIO v. MARTIN O‘MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security

23-CV-7144 (JMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 18, 2024

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

This social security action was referred to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. See Docket No. 7. In the Report and Recommendation filed on April 3, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Docket No. 15.

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge‘s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also . To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., . This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See, e.g., .

In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. See Docket No. 15, at 24-25. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called the parties’ attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, the parties have waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See ; see also .

Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. For the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation, the Administrative Law Judge improperly discredited medical evidence and Plaintiff‘s testimony. See ECF No. 15, at 9-23. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety, and the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2024

New York, New York

JESSE M. FURMAN

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary