Los Angeles Lawsuit Names Psychiatrist Stacy Cohen, MD in Claims Involving The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center

A press release issued by Verdict Public Relations and distributed through Access Newswire has brought additional public attention to pending litigation involving The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center.

The publicly filed First Amended Complaint names multiple defendants, including Stacy Cohen, MD, identified as the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist.

According to the press release, the case is Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., dba The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center, et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669, and is pending in the Santa Monica Courthouse, Department I, before the Honorable Mark H. Epstein. The lawsuit concerns events alleged to have occurred during a former patient's stay at the Malibu facility in July 2025.

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint Concerning Dr. Cohen

According to the publicly filed First Amended Complaint, Dr. Cohen is identified as the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist and is named as a defendant in the action. The complaint alleges, at paragraphs 13 through 18, that Dr. Cohen referred the plaintiff to The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center on or about July 14, 2025, after a consultation that morning. The complaint alleges that during that consultation, Dr. Cohen documented the plaintiff's medical history, including prior sinus surgeries and transsphenoidal surgeries for pituitary issues.

The complaint further alleges, at paragraph 17, that Dr. Cohen texted the facility's admissions director shortly after the consultation to facilitate the plaintiff's admission, and that no alternative treatment centers or options were recommended or discussed.

The complaint asserts multiple causes of action involving Dr. Cohen, including negligence (Second Cause of Action), fraud and intentional concealment (Fourth Cause of Action), negligent misrepresentation (Fifth Cause of Action), professional negligence and medical malpractice (Sixth Cause of Action), breach of fiduciary duty (Eighth Cause of Action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Ninth Cause of Action), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Tenth Cause of Action), among other claims asserted in the broader action.

Allegations Concerning the Referral and Continued Participation in Care

According to the complaint, Dr. Cohen's role is alleged to have extended beyond the initial referral. The complaint alleges, at paragraphs 110 through 116, that Dr. Cohen had documented the plaintiff's medical history of multiple prior sinus surgeries and is alleged to have had knowledge of the plaintiff's heightened vulnerability to environmental exposure and infection.

The complaint alleges that this knowledge was acquired during the intake process and was material to the referral decision.

The complaint further alleges, at paragraph 45, that on or about July 29, 2025, Dr. Cohen and Jennell Maze, LCSW, jointly participated in a coordinated telephone call concerning the plaintiff's request to seek emergency medical care. According to the complaint, during that call the defendants discouraged the plaintiff from obtaining emergency treatment and characterized his symptoms as psychosomatic and "drug seeking," despite, as the complaint alleges, objective clinical findings and laboratory confirmation of infection.

These allegations are contained in publicly filed court documents. They have not been adjudicated, and Dr. Cohen has not been found liable on any claim.

Questions Raised by Physician-Facility Referral Relationships

When a complaint names a treating physician alongside a treatment facility, it raises questions that extend beyond the facility itself. The complaint in this case alleges, at paragraphs 123 through 128, that Dr. Cohen both referred the plaintiff to The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center and continued to participate in clinical decisions during his stay, a dual role that the complaint places at the center of the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

Physician referral relationships are a routine part of how patients enter residential treatment. Where a complaint alleges that a referring physician had knowledge of conditions at a referred facility and did not disclose those conditions, or participated in communications that the complaint characterizes as discouraging emergency medical care, the referral relationship itself becomes part of the dispute. The allegations in this case are confined to the publicly filed complaint and remain unproven.

These questions concern the standard of care that may apply where a physician both refers a patient to a facility and continues to participate in that patient's treatment within it. They are relevant to this case as pleaded and to the broader public discussion of how referral networks function in the residential behavioral healthcare industry, where physician relationships with treatment facilities can carry financial and reputational dimensions.

The Case Continues

The case remains pending. The claims asserted in the complaint are allegations only, and no court has determined liability. The allegations against all defendants, including Dr. Cohen, remain contested. Public case information may be accessed through the Los Angeles Superior Court civil case access portal using Case No. 25SMCV04669.

The full complaint is available as an attachment to the press release distributed via Access Newswire and through the court's public access portal.

Read the full press release (distributed via Access Newswire)

This post is based on allegations contained in publicly filed court documents and a press release distributed by Verdict Public Relations via Access Newswire. The full complaint is available as an attachment to the press release and through the Los Angeles Superior Court civil case access portal. Those allegations remain contested, have not been proven in court, and no court has made any finding of liability.

DISCLOSURE AND LEGAL NOTICE

Behind The Pointe is published by Verdict Public Relations, LLC, a public relations company owned and operated by the plaintiff in Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669 (Los Angeles Superior Court). All content on this site is published at the direction of, and reflects the editorial perspective of, the plaintiff in that action. This site represents one party's perspective on pending civil litigation. This is disclosed so that readers may evaluate the content with full knowledge of its source and make their own independent judgments.

Certain articles on this site reference or discuss press releases distributed by Verdict Public Relations, LLC through third-party newswire services, including Access Newswire. Where such press releases have appeared on media platforms (including but not limited to the Associated Press, USA Today, Yahoo Finance, and Digital Journal), those appearances reflect paid press release distribution through a newswire service, not independent editorial coverage or endorsement by those outlets. This distinction is disclosed for transparency.

Where this blog references court filings, pleadings, or other official records, such content constitutes a fair and true report of public judicial proceedings within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 47(d). All factual statements regarding the litigation are based on and limited to information contained in publicly filed court documents. Any factual claim that is attributed to a complaint, motion, opposition, or other court filing reflects the contents of that filing as publicly recorded and does not represent an adjudicated finding, judicial determination, or independently verified fact unless expressly stated otherwise.

All other content on this site, including analysis, commentary, characterization, and editorial framing, constitutes protected opinion on matters of public concern, including patient safety, regulatory oversight, and accountability in the addiction treatment industry. Such statements reflect the subjective views and interpretation of the publisher, are not assertions of independently established fact, and are intended to be understood as opinion and commentary within the meaning of the First Amendment and Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying public records and form their own conclusions.

No statement on this site should be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing, an adjudication of liability, or a determination of fault by any court or governmental body. All individuals and entities referenced herein are presumed innocent of any allegations unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise. The litigation referenced on this site is pending and unresolved. The claims asserted in the referenced court filings are allegations only.

Where this site references government reports, audits, regulatory data, or publicly available licensing records, such content constitutes reporting on matters of public concern and does not relate to any specific pending litigation unless expressly stated.

The publisher reserves all rights and defenses under the First Amendment, the California Constitution, and California's Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16), including the right to seek recovery of attorney's fees and costs in response to any action targeting the content of this blog. Any legal action arising from or relating to the content of this site shall be subject to these protections.

Nothing on this site constitutes legal, medical, or professional advice. Court filings referenced on this site are available through the Los Angeles Superior Court civil case access portal using Case No. 25SMCV04669. Readers are encouraged to review all underlying records independently before forming any conclusions.

For corrections or inquiries: pr@verdictpublicrelations.com