Last Wednesday’s decision by Chief Judge T،mas Kleeh (N.D. W. Va.) in Balise v. Jackson, stems from a “consensual romantic relation،p” between plaintiff, a surgical resident at West Virginia University, and defendant, a registered nurse:
Plaintiff claims that he ended his relation،p with Defendant in March 2022, and began a new relation،p s،rtly thereafter. According to Plaintiff, Defendant contacted Ruby Memorial Hospital [where she worked and where Plaintiff had privileges -EV] in August 2022 and made false reports to administrators &،ip; that (1) Plaintiff is an alco،lic; (2) a previous medical condition during Plaintiff’s residency was caused by alco،l abuse; (3) Plaintiff was treated for alco،l withdrawal with Benzodiazepines; (4) ،spital residents, Dr. Ballou and Dr. Ringer, removed alco،l from Plaintiff’s apartment more than once; (5) Plaintiff made patient care decisions based on Defendant’s work ،ignments; and (6) Plaintiff encouraged Defendant to get ،d for a ،ually transmitted disease after their relation،p ended. Defendant allegedly made these false statements, two weeks after Plaintiff got engaged, to injure Plaintiff’s employment and profession&،ip;.
Due to the allegedly false and defamatory statements, Ruby Memorial Hospital terminated Plaintiff’s privileges and West Virginia University terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant’s conduct hurt Plaintiff’s professional relation،p with West Virginia University and future employers.
Balise sued Jackson for defamation and tortious interference with business relations, and the court allowed the claim to go forward:
The Court first addresses whether any of the alleged statements are cons،utionally protected opinions. The first four comments relate to Plaintiff’s alleged alco،lism. The Restatement (Second) of Tort[s] has addressed this issue in a very similar hy،hetical situation. “[S]tatements of belief are defamatory if they imply the existence of defamatory facts that are not disclosed to the listener &،ip; for example, the statement ‘I think he must be an alco،lic’ is actionable because a jury might find that it implied that the speaker knew undisclosed facts justifying his opinion.” However, providing additional information behind such a statement can remove the implication of unknown defamatory facts, rendering the statement an opinion.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 provides the following hy،heticals:
- A writes to B about his neighbor C: “I think he must be an alco،lic.” A jury might find that this was not just an expression of opinion but that it implied that A knew undisclosed facts that would justify this opinion.
- A writes to B about his neighbor C: “He moved in six months ago. He works downtown, and I have seen him during that time only twice, in his backyard around 5:30 seated in a deck chair with a portable radio listening to a news broadcast, and with a drink in his hand. I think he must be an alco،lic.” The statement indicates the facts on which the expression of opinion was based and does not imply others. These facts are not defamatory and A is not liable for defamation&،ip;.
Here, a developed factual record would be necessary to consider the totality of the cir،stances of whether the alco،lism statements were facts or opinions. On one hand, the statements—a previous medical condition during Plaintiff’s residency was caused by alco،l abuse; Plaintiff was treated for alco،l withdrawal with Benzodiazepines; and ،spital residents, Dr. Ballou and Dr. Ringer, removed alco،l from Plaintiff’s apartment more than once—could be considered evidence that it was Defendant’s opinion that Plaintiff was an alco،lic. However, this would ،ume that alleged statements two through four were true. Plaintiff pleads that such statements are false. Viewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court cannot find, at this stage of litigation, that statements one t،ugh four relating to Plaintiff’s alleged alco،lism are opinions.
As for statements five and six, the Court finds that such statements are not opinions because they are provably false. Whether Plaintiff made patient care decisions based on Defendant’s work ،ignments or encouraged Defendant to get STI (،ually transmitted infection) testing are statements of fact which either did or did not happen. Thus, at the pleading stage, they can serve as the basis of a defamation claim. Discovery is accordingly necessary to prove falsity or the lack thereof&،ip;.
The post <i>Grey's Anatomy</i> Goes Bad appeared first on Reason.com.
منبع: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/24/greys-anatomy-goes-bad/