Newly unsealed court documents in the case against Dr. Eithan Haim, the whistleblower who exposed Texas Children's Hospital's (TCH) continued performance of transgender medical procedures on minors, reveal potential discrepancies in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) allegations. The documents, reviewed by Fox News Digital, suggest the DOJ possessed information disproving their claims of HIPAA violations from the outset. Dr. Haim's case, which will now proceed to trial in mid-February, centers around his leaking of documents revealing TCH's practices despite the hospital's public statements claiming they had ceased such procedures. The DOJ's initial argument, that Dr. Haim hadn't treated TCH patients since 2021 and thus had no right to access patient records, appears contradicted by the unsealed documents which show his involvement with TCH patients extending into 2023.

Dr. Haim's wife, Andrea, speaking on his behalf due to court restrictions, expressed her belief that the prosecution is a deliberate attempt to silence whistleblowers challenging the narrative around transgender interventions for minors. She highlighted the multiple indictments and shifting allegations as evidence of a weak case built on a predetermined objective to find a crime. A rotation schedule confirms Dr. Haim's continued patient care at TCH well beyond the DOJ's claimed timeframe, a fact acknowledged by TCH in correspondence with the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights. Dr. Haim's legal team argues that this information, available to the DOJ prior to the indictment, invalidates the false pretenses charges related to his access of patient records. They assert that the DOJ's reliance on a statement from TCH's Chief of Surgery, who claimed not to recall residents providing backup care to adult patients, is further undermined by evidence of Dr. Haim's involvement in such cases.

Eithan Haim Rotation Schedule

Eithan Haim (Eithan Haim)

Eithan Haim (Eithan Haim)

The DOJ’s evolving narrative, from initially citing "HIPAA protected" information to later omitting this phrase and altering the description of the alleged victims, raises further questions about the strength and consistency of their case. The recent recusal of the lead prosecutor due to a potential conflict of interest involving family ties to the hospital system adds another layer of complexity to the proceedings. The defense argues that these developments demonstrate a negligent, if not malicious, prosecution based on flawed information. While the DOJ maintains that Dr. Haim accessed patient information without authorization and under false pretenses, the emerging evidence challenges this assertion and suggests a potential miscarriage of justice in the pursuit of silencing a whistleblower.