Mayo Clinic President Testifies About Calling Doctor 'Mentally Ill'

Dr. John Halamka faced questions about his emails labeling Dr. Michael Joyner as having a 'borderline personality disorder'.

Published on Feb. 4, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

During the third day of a civil trial between Dr. Michael Joyner and Mayo Clinic, the president of Mayo Clinic Platform, Dr. John Halamka, took the witness stand and faced questions about calling Joyner mentally ill as he dealt with complaints about Joyner from corporate partners. Joyner, an anesthesiologist and physiologist who has worked at Mayo Clinic since 1992, filed the case against Mayo Clinic in response to two disciplinary actions that he believes were 'weaponized' retaliation for his speaking out about MITRE Corp. repeatedly trying to access private patient data.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complex dynamics between doctors, administrators, and corporate partners at a major healthcare institution like Mayo Clinic. It raises questions about how mental health concerns are handled and communicated, as well as the balance between protecting patient privacy and collaborating with outside organizations.

The details

Halamka, who was hired to run Mayo Clinic Platform in January 2020, was called to the stand by Joyner's attorney. Halamka said he began receiving complaints about Joyner from Mayo Clinic colleagues and corporate partners like MITRE Corp. as Joyner's nationwide Expanded Access Program for Convalescent Plasma gained attention during the pandemic. Halamka, who is not a psychiatrist, said he believed Joyner suffered from 'some variant of oppositional defiant disorder or mania' and later changed his diagnosis to 'borderline personality disorder' after witnessing Joyner's behavior, including making 'threats to individuals'.

  • On June 19, 2020, Joyner sent a 3:40 a.m. text to MITRE's then-Chief Digital Health Physician Brian Anderson about MITRE attempting to access private patient data.
  • Later that morning, Halamka sent an email to Mayo Clinic CEO Gianrico Farrugia stating his belief that Joyner suffered from a mental illness.
  • Farrugia forwarded Halamka's email about Joyner to Mayo Clinic's then-Chief Administrative Officer Jeff Bolton at 7:04 a.m. on June 19, 2020.

The players

Dr. John Halamka

The president of the Mayo Clinic Platform who was hired in January 2020 and faced questions about calling Dr. Michael Joyner mentally ill.

Dr. Michael Joyner

An anesthesiologist and physiologist who has worked at Mayo Clinic since 1992 and filed a civil case against Mayo Clinic alleging retaliation for his speaking out about MITRE Corp. trying to access private patient data.

Gianrico Farrugia

The CEO of Mayo Clinic who received an email from Dr. Halamka about Dr. Joyner's mental health.

Jeff Bolton

Mayo Clinic's then-Chief Administrative Officer who received an email from CEO Gianrico Farrugia about Dr. Joyner.

Brian Anderson

MITRE's then-Chief Digital Health Physician who texted Dr. Halamka that "Joyner is crazy" after receiving a text from Joyner.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“It would be a grave error for you, John H., MITRE or the coalition to attempt to hijack our data.”

— Dr. Michael Joyner (Text message to Brian Anderson)

“Joyner is crazy and I feel unsafe due to this 'personal threat'.”

— Brian Anderson, MITRE's then-Chief Digital Health Physician (Text message to Dr. John Halamka)

“I will keep you informed, but from my years of treating borderline personalities I know that you can never fix them.”

— Dr. John Halamka, President of Mayo Clinic Platform (Email to Mayo Clinic CEO Gianrico Farrugia)

“And a very accurate diagnosis. Now what do we do, especially as his work becomes more and more important?”

— Jeff Bolton, Mayo Clinic's then-Chief Administrative Officer (Email response to Mayo Clinic CEO Gianrico Farrugia)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Dr. Joyner to continue his civil case against Mayo Clinic.

The takeaway

This case highlights the challenges healthcare institutions face in balancing patient privacy, corporate partnerships, and concerns about employee mental health. It raises questions about how mental health issues are identified and communicated, and the potential for retaliation when doctors speak out about data privacy breaches.