Newly released Justice Department files are putting Mount Sinai under an uncomfortable spotlight, suggesting that a longtime physician at the New York health system floated the idea of a donor-funded women's recovery floor that could bear a benefactor's name, including Jeffrey Epstein's. The documents also describe surgeons and donor-relations staff arranging expedited, off-channel care for women connected to Epstein and note that at least one surgeon later received a six-figure research donation. The material, part of a large trove the DOJ made public earlier this year, is once again stirring debate over how far big donors can reach into elite hospitals.
What the files show
Images and internal records from the trove first surfaced in reporting by the New York Times and, according to The Daily Beast, appear to show a medical procedure taking place on Epstein's dining-room table, with a Mount Sinai plastic surgeon closing a forehead wound with 35 stitches. The documents, which include emails, lab reports and calendar entries, depict Epstein coordinating appointments, asking for referrals and securing VIP treatment for women in his orbit. In several instances, the records describe care being arranged outside normal hospital channels rather than through standard intake or emergency departments.
Donations and a naming pitch
A review by POLITICO found that Epstein donated at least $250,000 to Mount Sinai after his 2008 conviction. According to that reporting, Dr. Eva Andersson-Dubin, founder of the Dubin Breast Center and a longtime trustee, proposed a $5 million postoperative cancer floor for women and suggested that "The Epstein Floor for Women" could be a naming option if Epstein chose to back the project financially. The files also show Dr. Jess Ting asking for a $50,000 gift for breast-cancer research that was ultimately paid from an Epstein account, a chain of events that has fueled questions about how donor money and clinical decision-making intersect at top-tier hospitals.
Mount Sinai's response
Mount Sinai Health System has told reporters it is reviewing the newly surfaced documents and has convened an internal committee to examine any institutional ties to Epstein, according to the reporting. The health system says it will take "any and all appropriate actions" and has reiterated that patient care is not determined by donor status. That pledge came after journalists and lawyers for Epstein's victims flagged specific examples in the files and publicly pressed the institution to account for its past relationships.
Doctors' responses
Physicians named in the documents have pushed back, saying they treated adult patients and did not know of any illegal conduct in the cases described. Reporting reviewed by POLITICO shows Dr. Ting sought funding from Epstein and later expressed regret about any association with him, while maintaining that he did not witness wrongdoing. Mount Sinai has declined to comment on specific clinical encounters cited in the files.
Why it matters
Medical ethicists say the records raise serious concerns about consent, privacy and the propriety of treating significant injuries in non-clinical settings. One expert described the decision to stitch a serious wound on a dining-room table instead of sending the patient to an emergency room as "breathtaking" and not in the patient's best interest, according to reporting on the files. The Justice Department has also pulled and re-redacted portions of the trove after victims' lawyers identified redaction errors in the public release, AP reported.
What's next
Mount Sinai says its review committee will recommend steps if it finds policy failures or gaps, while the Justice Department continues to process and redact additional records from the cache. The New York Post and other outlets are publishing new details as journalists comb through the material and victims' lawyers keep pushing for tougher safeguards. For now, the disclosures have reopened a tense discussion in New York about donor power, institutional transparency and how hospitals are supposed to shield patients' safety and privacy from the influence of big money.
