U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney cited California’s SLAPP law, aimed at curbing lawsuits over some exercises of speech, “on Wednesday when she tossed out a suit filed by the upscale retailer [Sharper Image] against Consumers Union over negative reviews of its best-selling product, the Ionic Breeze Quadra Air Purifier.” (Jeff Chorney, The Recorder, Nov. 11).
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
Latest customer-complaint-website suit
Alan and Linda Townsend of Dallas, Ga. were dissatisfied with a product called Spray On Siding after it was applied to their house and started a website to vent the opinions of other unhappy customers. The company that sold them the siding is now suing them for defamation, trademark infringement and other sins. (“Careful Where You Complain”, AP/Wired News, Nov. 5). For more suits against critics’ websites, see Mar. 31-Apr. 2, 2000 (Terminix case), as well as other cases on our free speech and media page. More: “May It Please the Court” also comments.
Dazed and Confused
If you see Bobby Wooderson, Andy Slater or Richard Floyd of Huntsville, Texas, don’t ask them if they wanna smoke a joint. The three former classmates of “Before Sunset” director Richard Linklater have decided, eleven years after the fact, that the Linklater movie “Dazed and Confused” defames them by using similarly named characters. As evidence of his emotional distress, Wooderson cites the fact that his son was asked for autographs by his Harvard classmates. (But how did they find out if his son wasn’t bragging about the coincidence?) Another plaintiff told a desk clerk that he was “the guy from ‘Dazed and Confused'” and was supposedly mobbed by a lobby full of fans–no doubt because New Yorkers are so enthralled by the sight of such a celebrity. The three are so upset that people associate them with a movie that did $8 million in box office in 1993 that before they served Linklater with the suit, they had their attorneys issue a nationally-publicized press release. They’ve sued in New Mexico, because Texas law doesn’t allow one to wait eleven years before suing for defamation. Actor Wiley Wiggins complains about “the sad sacks back in Huntsville who are trying to cash in 11 years later over vaguely having something to do with a movie.” (Andrew Tran, “Modified names spur ‘Dazed’ lawsuit”, Daily Texan, Oct. 12; Tom Waddill, “Three Huntsville residents file suit over negative resemblances in popular cult film”, Huntsville Item, Oct. 11; Chris Rush Cohen blog, Oct. 8).
Full disclosure: I once represented co-defendant Universal years ago. But that was about the Grinch.
Libel: the damage winning can do
About a year ago the conservative magazine National Review (disclosure: I’ve written for them and for a while served as a contributing editor on their masthead) was sued by a Muslim activist who claimed to have been defamed by an article containing inaccuracies about his connection to a controversial gathering. The communications director for the local chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed the hope that the lawsuit would “deter hate-mongers from undermining the character and work of those who do not share their extremist views.” The magazine eventually succeeded in getting the suit thrown out and even got a small payment from the plaintiff, but its libel insurance policy carried a $50,000 deductible, and its total expenses exceeded $65,000. It’s opened an appeal for contributions to cover the resulting hole in its budget — a “post-defense defense fund”. As Voltaire put it, “I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one.”
Texas: libel not a function of the dumbest readers
In 1999, 13-year old Christopher Beamon of Denton County’s Ponder, Texas, was assigned to write a Halloween story, but when he wrote a horror tale of accidentally shooting a teacher, he earned more than an A+: the local district attorney, Bruce Isaacks, prosecuted him, and Judge Darlene Whitten ordered him detained for a week at a juvenile center.
Already one for the overlawyered files, but then the Dallas Observer printed a parody having Isaacks and Whitten go after Cindy Bradley, a fictional six-year-old girl who read Where the Wild Things Are for first-grade story time. Isaacks and Whitten sued for libel, under the theory that because the story wasn’t labeled satire, some readers might think it’s the real thing. Amazingly, a lower court was ready for this to go to a jury trial before the Texas Supreme Court stepped in Friday and unanimously voted to throw out the case. The Court noted, among other things, that the Beijing Evening News took seriously an Onion story about Congress requesting a dome with a retractable roof and that another Onion story titled “Al-Qaida Allegedly Engaging in Telemarketing” provoked a Michigan sheriff to issue a warning in a press release. (AP, “Court rules for Dallas Observer in libel suit”, Sep. 3; Jesse Walker, “Where the Wild Suits Are”, Reason, Feb.; New Times Inc. v. Isaacks opinion; Daniel Terdiman, “Onion Taken Seriously, Film at 11”, Wired, Apr. 14) (via Hit & Run).
Update, Sep. 9: Howard Bashman has a comprehensive run-down of coverage, and points us to this Dallas Observer story gloating in victory.
Blogs on Poliner
The medical blogs are naturally talking about the Poliner litigation, where a doctor who had privileges suspended for allegations of improper care sued everyone involved in the peer review decision and eventually got a jury verdict of $366 million (Aug. 30). Dr. Rangel (Sep. 1) takes an interesting and nuanced view based in part on personal experience with the plaintiff; db’s MedRants blog (Aug. 31) calls for a “barf bag”; Bard-Parker (Aug. 31) suggests that one solution may be more systematic use of outside review, but notes that fear of litigation may not make that reform feasible.
Commenters are focused mostly on the liability decision, but one thing that immediately strikes the eye is the complete divorce from reality of the damages figure of $366 million. Even if one assumes that Poliner’s career was completely ruined notwithstanding a different peer review’s exoneration and throws in a million dollars for psychic injury, the figure is off by at least a factor of ten; if one more realistically limits damages to the few months he was out of practice, at least a factor of 100; if one limits damages to the month between the initial suspension and the privileged decision of the peer review committee, even more. Usually the remedy for excessive damages is “remittitur,” a fancy Latin word for the process where the judge makes up his or her own damages figure and tells the plaintiff to agree to that reduced figure or a motion for a new trial will be granted. But if a jury’s damages determination was the irrational product of passion, why presume (and, often, essentially assume) that the liability decision was reasoned?
His so-called reputation
Reports David Giacalone (ethicalEsq):
Elderly Schenectady (NY) lawyer Romolo Versaci has filed a $100,000 defamation suit against Diane C. Richie, an unemployed social worker and widow with two children. Versaci claims — and Richie admits — that she called him a “so-called attorney” on a SchenectadyNY.info message board. …
Versaci says the comment has “greatly injured” his reputation, and adds that “She’s got to stop these cutesy messages and think a little bit.” He has been replaced with another lawyer in the controversy that spawned this lawsuit. Richie says, “I haven’t got $100, let alone $100,000. I couldn’t even imagine a judge looking at this. It’s so stupid.”
Adds ethicalEsq: “Most days, I’d consider being called a ‘so-called attorney’ a compliment.” Evan Schaeffer has strong words concerning the action and his comments section should also be checked out. More watch-what-you-say-about-lawyers cases: Nov. 30, 2003, Sept. 16-17, 2002, more. Updates Jan. 19: David Giacalone reports on a further development; Mar. 20: judge throws out case.
From the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” files
In three separate cases in 1997, nurses at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas’s cardiac catherterization lab expressed concerns about Dr. Lawrence R. Poliner’s care of patients. When the director of the lab, Dr. John Levin, alleged to the hospital’s chief of cardiology, Dr. John Harper, that Poliner had also recently performed an emergency angioplasty on the wrong artery, the chair of department of internal medicine, Dr. James Knochel, confronted Poliner, and told him to voluntarily stop performing cardiac catheterizations while his privileges were reviewed or face termination. A six-doctor peer review committee met the next month, decided that Dr. Poliner had given substandard care in 29 out of 44 cases, and voted unanimously to suspend Dr. Poliner’s privileges at the lab.
So far, so good, right? After all, we’re told by the plaintiffs’ bar that the medical malpractice crisis would go away magically if the medical profession would just police its own, and that’s exactly what happened here. Can you imagine what a trial lawyer would do with the peer review committee’s conclusions if the hospital did nothing and had been sued for Poliner’s work afterwards?
Dr. Poliner eventually got his privileges reinstated a few months later in a hearing held before a different peer review committee of doctors after a number of prominent cardiologists spoke on his behalf; another appellate committee at the hospital found no wrongdoing by the initial peer review committee, who Poliner accused of seeking to eliminate him as “competition.” Not satisfied with exoneration, Poliner sought retribution. He, with the help of medical malpractice attorney Charla Aldous, sued the hospital, Knochel, Harper, Levin, and the six doctors on the peer review committee for supposed antitrust and “consumer fraud” violations, breach of contract, defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The antitrust and consumer fraud claims were thrown out (BNA, “Antitrust Claims Are Eliminated From Physician Suspension Case”, Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep., Nov. 7). So were the claims against the six peer review committee doctors, who had immunity under Texas Peer Review Immunity Statutes, which the state trial lawyers’ association had fought hard against in the legislature.
But the case against the other three doctors and the hospital proceeded. A jury found in favor of Dr. Poliner’s conspiracy theory that competitive malice motivated the entire affair. The jury’s proposed payday for six months’ missed work by the 60-year-old? $366 million: “$141 million to be paid by Dr. Knochel, $32 million each from Dr. Harper and Dr. Levin and $161 million from Presbyterian.” The hospital announced that it would appeal: “From time to time, hospitals and members of the medical staff leadership must make decisions relating to patient care and safety, and these decisions sometimes affect an individual doctor’s privileges at that hospital.” (Terry Maxon, “Dallas doctor awarded $366 million in damages”, Dallas Morning News, Aug. 28).
Not so gentle
A New Age psychotherapeutic outfit based in Kittery, Maine, and nearby New Hampshire, the Gentle Wind Project “is a 24-year-old non-profit corporation that describes itself as being ‘dedicated to education and research aimed at alleviating human suffering and trauma.’ … The organization holds seminars across the country, selling “healing instrument” products for donations ranging from $450 to upwards of $10,000, asserting they have exclusive healing technology that is channeled telepathically from the ‘spirit world’ and has healing powers.” On a less serene note, the organization recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a husband and wife from Blue Hill, Me., Judy Garvey and James F. Bergin, and various other individuals defamed Gentle Wind by publishing a website criticizing the organization’s leadership and cautioning newcomers against excessive involvement. Garvey and Bergin were themselves formerly involved with Gentle Wind. (James Baker, “New age therapy group sues over Web site”, Foster’s Sunday Citizen (N.H.), Aug. 8)(more). The Gentle Wind Project’s side of the story may be found here and here. Update Jan. 19, 2006: federal judge dismisses suit.
Sues over restaurant review
Restaurateur Phil Romano earlier this month “slapped Dallas Morning News restaurant critic Dotty Griffith and the Belo Corp., the newspaper’s parent, with a suit alleging fraud, malice, defamation and an ‘attempt to cripple the business of one of Dallas’ finest new restaurants’ via an April 16 restaurant review. That finest new restaurant is Il Mulino New York, the Romano-shepherded Dallas extension of the much heralded Greenwich Village venue founded in 1981 by Fernando and Gino Masci.” (Mark Stuertz, “Eat My Briefs”, Dallas Observer, Aug. 12; Sean Mehegan, “The Porcini Was Praiseworthy, but a Lawsuit Was Served Next”, New York Times, Aug. 23). Update Jan. 3, 2006: parties settle with paper agreeing to run second review.