Stein v. McGowan (Summary)

DEFAMATION

Stein v. McGowan, No. 1:12-cv-605 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied a defendant physician’s motion for summary judgment in a defamation suit brought by another physician.

The plaintiff was a director and officer of a cholesterol treatment center (“CTC”) and a metabolic and atherosclerosis research center (“MARC”). When he began to plan for his retirement, he brought in the defendant physician to begin taking over his responsibilities at both the CTC and MARC. After beginning her work at the CTC and MARC, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff prescribed pills in high amounts, and directed patients to cut the pills in half. She also claimed that the plaintiff reported different doses on the patient’s chart than he actually prescribed. The defendant said she did not approve with the practice of containing the patients’ CTC charts with the MARC clinical trial charts, as she believed it was a violation of HIPAA. After working at CTC and MARC for several months, the defendant met with staff members, where she accused the plaintiff of engaging in insurance fraud and posing a threat to patient safety. The defendant also expressed her concerns to her nephew and the Ohio Board of Pharmacy. She was fired soon after that.

The court held that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because factual disputes existed as to whether she was entitled to a qualified privilege to shield statements made in the scope of employment. Also, the court determined that there was a dispute over whether the defendant acted in good faith, and whether she discussed her concerns about plaintiff with third parties without legitimate reasons.