By Greg Care

An interesting case out of federal court in Connecticut shows us an interesting role reversal (a program director suing residents) and how hard it can be to prevail on defamation claims in medical residency and academic spaces.

In this case decided last week, the court granted summary judgment in favor of a pair of residents who their former program director (PD) sued for defamation. The controversy related to statements the two residents were alleged to have made about the PD in the context of a meeting of the program’s interns and Graduate Medical Education (GME) leadership, an internal due process appeal submitted by one of the residents, a PowerPoint presentation shown by the Department Chair, and follow-up meetings between the intern and PGY-2 residency classes and HR. The decision, linked above, discusses the specific statements in question.

After an HR investigation, the hospital terminated the PD. In turn, the PD sued the two residents on the theory that statements they made precipitated the PD’s termination. The Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the residents was for a variety of technical legal reasons.

First, the PD’s claims against one resident (Dr. “X”) failed because the PD’s only proof of what Dr. X allegedly said was inadmissible hearsay. However, the PD himself was witness to at least some of what the other resident (Dr. “Y”) had said, avoiding the hearsay issue.

Nonetheless, the Court found that the vast majority of Dr. Y’s allegedly defamatory statements were opinions, rather than statements of objective fact, thus making them not subject to a claim for defamation. So, that left only the claim that the PD “yelled” at Dr. Y as a potentially defamatory statement.

The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Dr. Y’s “truth defense” to that one remaining claim (i.e., that he conceded he’d raised his voice to residents when scolding them) that the PD failed to contest.

While that finding disposed of all allegedly defamatory statements, the Court went on to discuss that—in all events—the residents enjoyed the protection of a qualified privilege when voicing their concerns about the PD in the context of internal fora meant to address such concerns.

So, in the end, the residents avoided liability on legal grounds that often defeat defamation claims, especially in employment and academic settings. This is an area of the law that, to many non-lawyers, works counterintuitively. Not every statement, even if unfair or hurtful, is defamation. There are strict tests meant to protect the expression of opinion, particularly in peer review and similar circumstances where the law favors immunity from suit to foster frankness. As I often say, it comes down to individual facts and circumstances that need to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.

If you have questions regarding your medical residency, peer review, or defamation, reach out to us today to see if we can assist.

* Content on this website, including blog articles, are proprietary and copyright protected. If you wish to use all or part of a blog article, we request that you properly attribute the work and include a link to the Brown, Goldstein & Levy webpage on which it appears.