Vivian, J. v. St. Luke's Hospital
2024 Pa. Super. 118, 318 A.3d 890 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements of opinion in a press release describing a prior lawsuit as 'frivolous' and the opposing party's actions as 'reprehensible' and 'unconscionable' are not actionable for defamation because they are subjective characterizations rather than verifiable facts. Furthermore, filing non-meritorious discovery motions, even with bad intentions, does not constitute abuse of process unless it is for an illegitimate purpose such as extortion or blackmail.
Facts:
- Charles Cullen, a nurse at St. Luke’s Hospital, resigned in June 2002 after being suspected of improperly handling medication.
- In December 2003, Cullen confessed to killing patients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but he never admitted to any involvement in the deaths of Regina Miller or Marilyn Hall, who had been patients at St. Luke's.
- Attorney John R. Vivian, Jr. filed wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the estates of Miller and Hall against St. Luke’s, alleging Cullen had murdered them by administering unprescribed substances.
- The estates' own forensic pathology expert, Dr. David R. Fowler, reported that he could neither include nor exclude the decedents from the group of Cullen's victims.
- The wrongful death actions were subsequently dismissed because the estates could not establish a prima facie case of causation without expert testimony linking Cullen to the deaths.
- On March 25, 2011, St. Luke's, represented by Blank Rome, LLP, initiated wrongful use of civil proceedings actions (under the Dragonetti Act) against Vivian.
- On March 28, 2011, St. Luke's issued a press release about the Dragonetti actions, quoting its CEO, Richard A. Anderson, who stated it was the hospital's responsibility to respond to 'frivolous lawsuits' and described the actions of Vivian as 'reprehensible,' 'inappropriate and unconscionable.'
Procedural Posture:
- John R. Vivian, Jr. sued Blank Rome, LLP, St. Luke's Hospital, and several individuals in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), asserting claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.
- The trial court case was stayed for several years pending the resolution of related litigation.
- After the stay was lifted and discovery was completed, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Vivian's complaint with prejudice.
- Vivian, as appellant, filed a timely appeal of the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do statements in a press release describing a lawsuit as 'frivolous' and the opposing party's actions as 'reprehensible,' 'inappropriate,' and 'unconscionable' constitute non-actionable opinion and therefore fail to support claims for defamation, false light, and abuse of process?
Opinions:
Majority - Colins, J.
Yes, such statements constitute non-actionable opinion and do not support the asserted claims. The court reasoned that the defamation claim failed because the challenged statements were either true statements of fact (describing the filing of the Dragonetti lawsuits) or protected opinion. Descriptors like 'inappropriate,' 'unconscionable,' and 'reprehensible' are subjective characterizations and pure opinion that do not imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. The phrase 'frivolous lawsuits' was not defamatory in context, as it was used to explain the filing of a Dragonetti action, a legal claim specifically designed to provide recourse against frivolous litigation. The court also rejected the argument that Defendants lost judicial privilege by 'republishing' allegations from the complaint in the press release, holding that merely referencing a public court filing without affirmatively sending the complaint to the press does not constitute republication. The false light claim failed for the same reasons, as it was based on true statements and non-actionable opinions. Finally, the abuse of process claim failed because filing non-meritorious discovery motions, even with bad intentions like causing delay, is not a 'perversion' of process unless aimed at an illegitimate objective like extortion or blackmail, which was not alleged here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for defamation claims arising from public statements made in the context of litigation, strongly protecting expressions of opinion. It clarifies that heated, subjective rhetoric like 'frivolous' or 'reprehensible' will likely be deemed non-actionable opinion rather than a verifiable statement of fact. The court also sets a clear, narrow boundary for the 'republication' exception to judicial privilege, requiring an affirmative act of distributing privileged documents to a third party, not just referencing them publicly. This provides significant protection for litigants and counsel who issue press releases or other public statements about their cases, allowing for robust, if critical, commentary.
Unlock the full brief for Vivian, J. v. St. Luke's Hospital