Last Wednesday’s decision by Chief Judge Thomas Kleeh (N.D. W. Va.) in Balise v. Jackson, stems from a “consensual romantic relationship” between plaintiff, a surgical resident at West Virginia University, and defendant, a registered nurse:
Plaintiff claims that he ended his relationship with Defendant in March 2022, and began a new relationship shortly 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 … that (1) Plaintiff is an alcoholic; (2) a previous medical condition during Plaintiff’s residency was caused by alcohol abuse; (3) Plaintiff was treated for alcohol withdrawal with Benzodiazepines; (4) hospital residents, Dr. Ballou and Dr. Ringer, removed alcohol from Plaintiff’s apartment more than once; (5) Plaintiff made patient care decisions based on Defendant’s work assignments; and (6) Plaintiff encouraged Defendant to get tested for a sexually transmitted disease after their relationship ended. Defendant allegedly made these false statements, two weeks after Plaintiff got engaged, to injure Plaintiff’s employment and profession….
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 relationship 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 constitutionally protected opinions. The first four comments relate to Plaintiff’s alleged alcoholism. The Restatement (Second) of Tort[s] has addressed this issue in a very similar hypothetical situation. “[S]tatements of belief are defamatory if they imply the existence of defamatory facts that are not disclosed to the listener … for example, the statement ‘I think he must be an alcoholic’ 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 hypotheticals:
A writes to B about his neighbor C: “I think he must be an alcoholic.” 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 alcoholic.” 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….
Here, a developed factual record would be necessary to consider the totality of the circumstances of whether the alcoholism statements were facts or opinions. On one hand, the statements—a previous medical condition during Plaintiff’s residency was caused by alcohol abuse; Plaintiff was treated for alcohol withdrawal with Benzodiazepines; and hospital residents, Dr. Ballou and Dr. Ringer, removed alcohol from Plaintiff’s apartment more than once—could be considered evidence that it was Defendant’s opinion that Plaintiff was an alcoholic. However, this would assume 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 though four relating to Plaintiff’s alleged alcoholism 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 assignments or encouraged Defendant to get STI (sexually 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….
The post <i>Grey’s Anatomy</i> Goes Bad appeared first on Reason.com.
