Doe v. Baylor College of Medicine

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JANE AND JOHN DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND§
AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF A. 	§
DOE, A MINOR,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-04482
Pending before this Court is Defendant Baylor College of Medicine's ("BCM") Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe, individuall y, and as parents and next friends of A.
Doe, a minor ("Plaintiffs") filed a response, (Doc. No. 13), and BCM filed a reply brief (Doc. No. 14).
Afte r close consideration of the pleadings and relevant le gal standards, the Court hereby GRANTS-
IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART BCM 's Motion to Di smiss (Doc. No. 9).
I. 	Factual Background
This case arises from the alleged political di stri bution of confidential medical information
related to gender-affirming care for a minor. ln the First Amended Complaint, 1 the Plaintiffs allege that
Dr. Eithan Haim ("Dr. Haim"), a resident medical doctor at Baylor College of Medicine ("BCM"),
used hi s credentials to " illegally obtain[] copies of multiple transgender children's confidential health
information" from Texas Children's Hospital ("TCH") and to publish that information online for
political attention. (Doc. No. 8 at 3). These documents were allegedly published on a political blog and
1 The Plaintiffs initially filed their Original Petition in Texas state court. See (Doc. No. 1). After BCM
removed the case to this Court, BCM filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 6). Shortly thereafter, the
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 8). Though the Plaintiffs did not seek leave
of the Court to do so, the Court hereby grants leave for the First Amended Complaint to be filed.
Accordingly, BCM 's Motion to Dismiss the Original Petition (Doc. No. 6) is denied as moot.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 11

"include[ d] patient names, ages, diagnoses, treatments, appointment dates and exact times, referring
physician, procedure details, and even room numbers." (Id. at 5). The blog purportedly "linked these
patient records in publications on multiple websites, across multiple social media platforms, and even
sent links to email subscribers," reaching over eight million people. (Id.). According to the Plaintiffs,
any "sufficiently interested person could determine the identities of the patients or their parents" from
the documents posted online. (Id.).
The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the leak, Dr. Haim was a resident medical doctor in the
BCM General Surgery Residency Program. (Id. at 6). Throughout the course of the residency program ,
Dr. Haim was allegedly employed on "rotations" through various Houston medical facilities, including
TCH. (Id.). During these rotations at the different medical facilities, Dr. Haim, in his capacity as a
BCM resident, allegedly had access to the facility and treated patients. (Id.). Nevertheless, at the time
Dr. Haim allegedly accessed and distributed this medical information to several journalists, "he was
no longer working at TCH," or, in other words, was no longer on his rotation at TCH through his
residency program. (Id.). About one month before the documents were published online, Dr. Haim
allegedly "emailed the TCH administrator to request that his login credentials be restored ," and shortly
thereafter, "his login activity indicated that he had accessed pediatric patient files. " (Id.).
While the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Dr. Haim " never had a treating relationship with A.
Doe," see (id. at 6), the Plaintiffs allege that BCM owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to protect confidential
medical information and "knew or should have known that Dr. Haim posed a serious risk to the privacy
of transgender and gender dysphoria patients." (Id. at 7) . Relying on information alleged in the federal
indictment2 against Dr. Haim and various of his public statements, the Plaintiffs a ll ege that Dr. Haim 's
"crusade against gender-affirming care" was " widely discussed by him with colleagues and other BCM
2 The Department of Justice has since dismissed the Superseding Indictment against Dr. Haim. See
United States ofAmerica v. Ethan David Haim, Case No. 4:24-CR-00298 (Doc. No . 147).
2
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 11

emp loyees," and he was outspoken about his "whistleb lowing" attempt to reveal the gender-affirming
operations at TCH. (Id. at 7- 8). Add iti ona ll y, the Plaintiffs a ll ege BCM sho uld have prevented this
breach of medical information because Dr. Haim reportedly "made one or more failed attempts to
access transgender ch ildren 's patient records from TCH using his BCM credenti als ... before finally
succeeding." (Id. at 8).
The Plaintiffs allege that the leak of sensitive medical information related to A. Doe's gender-
affirm in g care has caused them "increased anxiety, depression, and insomnia." (Id. at I 0). Additionally,
the Plaintiffs alleged ly " scrambled to se ll their home, find new jobs , and find a new place to li ve whi le
living in fear of harassment or vio lence from hostile actors who have an unknown amo unt of private
information about their family." (Id. at 10- 11).
The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against BCM in Harris Co un ty, Texas state court. (Doc. No.
1). BCM timely removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). The Plaintiffs
brought six separate causes of action against BCM for (1) the unauthorized release of confidential
in formation und er § 159.009 of the Texas Occupations Code, (2) negligent hiring, (3) negligent
retention, (4) negligent superv ision and enforcement, (5) public disclosure of private facts, and (6)
professional negligence. (Doc. No. 8). BCM filed a Motion to Dismiss each of the claims under Federal
Rule of Civ il Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 9). The Court addresses the Motion below.
II. 	Legal Standards
A defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint for "fai lure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted." F ED. R. C!v. P. 12(b)(6). To defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a
plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007). "A claim has fac ial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factua l
content that al lows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
" The plausibility standard is not akin to a ' probability req uirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
3
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 11

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Where a
complaint pleads facts that are ' merely consi stent with ' a defendant's liability, it ' stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. "' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as
true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. , 509 F.3d 673 , 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not bound to accept factual assumptions or legal
conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678- 79. When the re are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court assumes
their veracity and then determines whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
III. 	Analysis
BCM requests this Court to dismiss each of the six causes of action: (1) the unauthorized
release of confidential information under § 159.009 of the Texas Occupations Code, (2) negligent
hiring, (3) negligent retention, (4) negligent supervision and enforcement, (5) public disclosure of
private facts , and (6) professional negligence. Generally, BCM argues that the Plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently allege that BCM is vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. Haim. Additionally, BCM
contends that the Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for any of the six causes of
action . The Court addresses these arguments below.
A. 	Vicarious Liability
The Plaintiffs have asserted the theory of vicarious liability to support their claims for (1) the
unauthorized release of confidential information under§ 159.009 of the Texas Occupations Code, (2)
public disclosure of private facts, and (3) professional negligence. While not contesting that Dr. Haim
was an employee, BCM contends that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that BCM is vicariously
liable for his actions because he was not operating within the course and scope of his residency.
It is undisputed that Texas law applies to this case. (Doc. Nos. 9, 13). "The general rule is that
an employer is liable for its employee 's tort only when the tortious act falls within the scope of the
4
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 11

employee's general authority in furtherance of the employer 's business and for the accomplishment of
the object for which the employee was hired." Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 80 S.W.3d 573 ,
577 (Tex. 2002). "The employee's acts must be of the same general nature as the conduct authorized
or incidental to the conduct authorized to be within the scope of employment." Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 757 (Tex. 2007). Accordingly, "if an employee deviates from
the performance of his duties for his own purposes, the employer is not responsible for what occurs
during that deviation." Minyard, 80 S.W.2d at 577. The Supreme Court of Texas has explained that
" [t]he course-and-scope inquiry ... involves an objective analysis, hinging on whether the employee
was performing the tasks generally assigned to him in furtherance of the employer's business." Painter
v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125, 138- 39 (Tex. 2018).
BCM argues that Dr. Haim was not operating within the course and scope of his alleged
employment as a resident medical doctor when he accessed confidential medical information and
distributed that information online. The Court agrees. In this case, while it is undisputed that Dr. Haim
was a resident doctor at BCM at the time of the data leak,3 there are no factual allegations to support
that Dr. Haim was acting in "furtherance of the employer's business" or "for the accomplishment of
the object for which the [he] was hired" when he allegedly distributed the medical information to a
political website. Minyard, 80 S.W.2d at 577.
First, the Plaintiffs admit that Dr. Haim was no longer on his BCM rotation at TCH when he
reached out to the TCH administration for reinstatement of his access to medical files. See (Doc. No.
8 at 7). It follows that, according to the factual allegations in the Complaint, Dr. Haim no longer had
any official business at TCH through his residency program with BCM. While Dr. Haim may have
3 The Court notes that while BCM does not concede that Dr. Haim was an "employee" at the time of
the incident, BCM does not dispute this allegation in its Motion to Dismiss. BCM limits its argument
to the "course and scope" of "his residency." (Doc. No. 9 at 15). The Court need not address whether
Dr. Haim was an "employee" of BCM for the purpose of establishing vicarious I iability because it finds
that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that he was operating within the course and scope of his residency.
5
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 11

used his BCM credentials or affiliation to ga in access to the TCH files, the use of his credentials alone
is insufficient to establish that he was operating within the course and scope of his residency. See
Larson v. Hyperion Int 'l Techs., L.L. C. , 494 F. App'x 493, 496 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that the mere
use of an employer's technology to commit a tort was in sufficient to establish vicarious liability).
Second, the Plaintiffs provide no factual allegations to sufficiently plead that Dr. Haim 's actions
were in any way, shape, or form in the related to his work with the residency program or in
"furtherance" of the BCM business . Not only are the Complaint and the Response to the Motion to
Dismiss completely 	barren 	of any explanation, 	but common sense confirms that the 	alleged
misappropriation of private medical information to a political blog is certainly not in furtherance of the
business of any medical schoo l. On the whole, the face of the Complaint alleges that Dr. Haim dev iated
from 	hi s professional duti es 	in 	his residency program 	to allegedly distribute private 	med ical
information for political gain or a "w histleblowing" attempt to reveal the ge nder-affirming care offered
atTCH.
Although the Complaint asserts in a conclusory fashion that Dr. Haim was operating within the
"course and scope" of his alleged employment with BCM, the Complaint does not include specific
factual allegations to support that contention. The Court cannot accept the conclusory allegations to
establish vicarious liability. Max-George v. Myrick, No. 21-20281 , 2023 WL 4501872, at *2 (5 th Cir.
2023) ("Mere conclusory al le gat ion s are insufficient to surv iv e a motion to dismiss."). Without specific
factual allegations that plausibly set out that Dr. Haim was operating within the course and scope of
hi s residency, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the theory of vicarious
liability. Accordingly, the claims for (1) the un authori zed release of confidential information under §
159.009 of t he Texas Occupations Code, (2) public disclosure of private facts, and (3) professional
negligence are DISMISSED.
6
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 11

B. 	The Remaining Claims
Finding that the Plaintiffs failed to state the vicarious liability claims, the Court must assess
the remaining three causes of action for negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision
and enforcement. BCM argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that it owed a legal duty to the
Plaintiffs because the injury was unforeseeable. BCM also contends that the Plaintiffs otherwise failed
to state a claim for these three causes of action under Federal Rule of Civi l Procedure 12(6)(6).
1. 	Duty
BCM argues that these tort claims must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish the existence of a legal duty because "the purported facts fai l to show that either A. Doe 's
alleged injury might have reasonably been antic ip ated by BCM or that A. Doe was situated such that
her injury might reasonably have been foreseen." (Doc. No. 9 at 11 ). The Supreme Court of Texas has
recognized that "[b ]efore impos in g a duty of care . . . the risk of harm must be foreseeable" because a
person has " neith er a legal nor moral obligation to guard against that which cannot be foreseen." Tex.
Hom e Mgmt., In c. v. Peavy, 89 S.W.3d 30, 36 (Tex. 2002) (quoting Houston Lighting & Power Co . v.
Brooks, 336 S.W.2d 603,606 (Tex. 1960)).
BCM contends the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege the foreseeability of the injury, and
therefore, the existence of a legal duty. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that whi le they wi ll " require
discovery to know the specific conversations, communications, or red flags that may have come to
BCM 's knowledge," the factual allegations in the Complaint sufficiently establish that BCM should
have reasonably anticipated the ri sk of the dissemination of private medical information related to
gender-affirming care. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that " BCM knew or should have known that
Dr. Haim posed a serious risk to the privacy of transgender and gender dysphoria patients because Dr.
Haim was outspoken in his opposition to gender-affirming care and outspoken about his attempt to
whistleblow on the operations at TCH. See (Doc. No. 8 at 8). Further, the Complaint states that "Dr.
Haim's recent public statements" indicate that he "work[ed] for more than five months, beginning in
7
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 11

Fall 2022, to obtain and release the private information." (Id.). Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that
"based on documents from his prior crimina l indictment, Dr. Haim made one or more failed attempts
to access" the records using his BCM credentials and "worked with one or more other individuals
employed by BCM and/ or TCH to gain access to the records. (Id. at 8- 9).
The Plaintiffs argue that these factua l a ll egations sufficiently plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and sufficiently allege the existence of a legal duty.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The Court agrees. Accepting the well-pleaded factua l allegations in the
Complaint as true, the Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently a ll eges that BCM owed legal duty to
the Plaintiffs.
2. 	Negligent Hiring
BCM contends that the Plaintiffs fai led to state a negligent hiring claim. "To prevail on a
negligent hiring claim, a plaintiff must estab li sh that 'an employer knew or shou ld have known through
the exercise of reasonable care that an employee was incompetent or unfit and that [his] hiring or
retention would thereby create an unreasonable risk of harm to others." Collins v. Walgreen Co. , No.
4:23-CV-02470, 2024 WL 385697, at *1 (S.D. Tex. 2024). "[A] plaintiff must demonstrate that there
is 'something in the employee 's background that would cause a reasonable emp loyer not to hire or
retain the employee. " ' See Goldfarb v. Elite Serv. Recovery & Towing, LLC, 2018 WL 4677817, at *2
(E.D. Tex. Aug. 17 , 2018) (quoting Dangerfield v. Ormsby, 264 S.W.3d 904, 912 (Tex. App.- 	Fort
Worth 2008, no pet.)). Further, the "[n]eg li gence in hiring requires that the employer's 'failure to
investigate, screen, or supervise its [hires] proximately caused the injuries the plaintiffs a ll ege." Fifth
Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 796 (Tex. 2006).
The Complaint a ll eges that " BCM has a duty to adequate ly and thoroughly investigate
candidates for its residency program before hiring them" and that BCM failed to "adequately and
thoroughly investigate its resident, Dr. Haim, before hiring him." (Doc. No. 8 at 9). Further, the
Complaint states that "[t]his failure led to Dr. Haim having access to the private medical in formation
8
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 11

of a category of patients he had been openly antagonistic towards ." (Id.). BCM argues that these factual
allegations are insufficient to state a negligent hiring claim because the Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts
that BCM could have discovered that would have revealed Dr. Haim to be unfit for the position or an
incompetent medical re sident at the time he was hired. See Goldfarb, 2018 WL 4677817, at *2. The
Court finds that the allegation that Dr. Haim was "antagonistic" towards a "category of patients" does
give rise to a plausible negligent hiring claim. This claim is dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)( 6).
3. 	Negligent Retention
BCM al so argues that the Plainti ffs failed to state a claim for negligent retention. "The basis of
responsi°bility under the doctrine of negligent retention is the master 's negligence in retaining his
employ an incompetent servant whom the master knows, or by exercise of reasonable care should have
known, was incompetent or unfit, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others." Hernandez
v. Ventura Sys LL C, 3:23-CV-2244, 2024 WL 583500, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13 , 2024). "The negligent
retention theory is similar to negligent hiring except that a plaintiff must show the employer knew or
reasonably should have known information about an employee that made them unfit and warranted
firing. " Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex. , LL C, 706 F.Supp.3d 689, 699 (S .D. Tex. 2023).
In addition to the factual allegations mentioned above, the Complaint also includes factual
allegations that after BCM hired Dr. Haim as a resident, Dr. Haim continued to be outspoken about his
alleged " hostility" and "crusade" on gender-affirming care with his colleagues and other BCM
employees. (Doc. No. 8 at 8). Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Dr. Haim admitted in public
statements that he had been working on obtaining the medical files for "more than five months" for
publication and had "one or more failed attempts to access transgender children 's patient records from
TCH using his BCM credentials." (Id.). Based on those factual allegations, the Plaintiffs allege that
BCM "failed to detect the unauthorized access and misappropriation" and "failed to take appropriate
action- 	such as dismissing the resident from the general surgery program or at least limiting his access
9
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 11

to records he had no proper purpose in accessing- 	when it learned of his intentions and prior attempts."
(Id. at 9). While BCM argues that these factual allegations are insufficient to state a negligent retention
claim, the Court finds that these allegations "a llow[] the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that
[BCM] is liable" for negligent retention. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.
4. 	Negligent Supervision and Enforcement
BCM also argues that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for negligent supervision and
enforcement. To survive a motion to dismiss a neglige nt supervision claim, a plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to state that (1) "the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a legal duty to supervise its
employees," (2) "the employer breached the duty," and (3) "the breach proximately caused the
plaintiff's injuries." Cobos v. Bluefin Water Sols. , LLC , No. 2 l-CY-00072, 2022 WL 84 7235 at *9
(W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2720854 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
6, 2022). Both parties solely briefed the negligent supervision claim- 	not the alleged " negligent
enforcement." The Court interprets this last claim as a negligent supervision claim.
For the same reasons explained above, the Court finds that the Complaint states a claim for
negligent supervision. Not only does the Complaint allege that Dr . Haim was outspoken about his
animosity for gender-affirming care and his whistleblowing plans to expose the operations at TCH , but
the Complaint also alleges that Dr. Haim had made several previous attempts to improperly access and
distribute confidential medical information using his BCM credentials. See (Doc. No . 8 at 8- 10). The
Court finds that these allegations "allow[] the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that [BCM] is
liable" for negligent retention. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.
5. 	Damages
Lastly, BCM argues that the alleged damages are "conclusory in nature and offer no specific
support" and do not "draw any causal link between their alleged damages and BCM." (Doc. No. 9 at
25). The Court disagrees. The Complaint alleges that the release of the confidential medical
information caused the Plaintiffs to experience "increased anxiety, depression, and insomnia." (Doc .
10
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 11

No. 8 at 10). Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs "scrambled to sell their home, find
new jobs , and find a new place to live while living in fear of harassment or violence from hostile actors
who have an unknown amount of private information about their family." (Id. at 10- 11). The Court
notes that "[a]t the pleading stage, each subset of damage does not need to be pied with specificity or
directly supported with evidence." Luke v. Lee Co unty, 1:20-CV-388, 2023 WL 6141594, at *2 (W.D.
Tex. Sep. 20, 2023). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs included factual allegations sufficient to support
their claim for damages. A more detailed picture of the alleged damages can be gained through the
discovery process.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART
BCM 's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9). The Plaintiffs' claims for the unauthorized release of
confidential information under§ 159.009 of the Texas Occupations Code, public disclosure of private
facts, professional negligence, and negligent hiring are dismissed with prejudice. The negligent
retention and negligent supervision claims remain live.
It is so ordered.
/ -\'L
Signed on this the '\. ~ 	day of March 2026.
~b\ ~Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
11
Case 4:25-cv-04482 Document 15 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 11