Kapoor v. Brown (Summary)

DEFAMATION

Kapoor v. Brown, No. A13-1402 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of Minnesota affirmed summary judgment in favor of a multispecialty medical clinic, its administrator, and an OB/GYN who were sued by a radiologist for defamation after requesting that the radiologist’s employer no longer schedule him to read their scans, stating that he had reported one of the physicians to the state medical board, and stating that he had “lost his mind.”

The alleged animosity between the radiologist and other physicians in this case was related to the birth of the radiologist’s son.  His wife’s family physician was unable to attend the birth, resulting in the on-call family practice physician and resident attending the delivery (with which the doctor and his wife were dissatisfied).  When the radiologist and his wife attempted to switch her postpartum care to an OB/GYN, that OB/GYN refused to see them pursuant to a departmental policy of not seeing patients who had been delivered by a family practice physician.  A few months later, the OB/GYN called the radiologist’s employer to request that her patients’ CT scans not be read by the radiologist because she was concerned that his feelings about the birth of his son had compromised his ability to be impartial and she did not trust him.  Subsequently, the family practice physician who had been unavailable to deliver the radiologist’s baby learned that a complaint had been filed against her with the board of medical practice and believed that the radiologist or his wife must have made the complaint.  She reported her concerns to the administrator of the medical clinic, who contacted the radiologist’s employer to request that the radiologist no longer be present on the premises of their buildings or read any of their cases.  In the process, the administrator allegedly stated that the radiologist had reported the family practice physician to the state board and “has lost his mind.”

The appellate court found that the lower court did not err by granting summary judgment to the medical group, administrator, and physician because the statements at issue could not reasonably be interpreted as representations of fact and, accordingly, were not defamatory.  The court reasoned that the statements were subjective opinions and expressions of personal preferences to not have the radiologist involved in their patients’ care, rather than statements of fact.  Further, the statement that the radiologist “lost his mind” was a “rhetorical hyperbole” that could not be proven true or false and was merely intended to convey the subjective concern that the radiologist was so upset with the physicians involved in the delivery of his baby that his ability to perform his professional duties was compromised.