;)
June 21st, 2024
In the case of Vivian v. Blank Rome, 2024 PA Super 118, No. 1406 EDA 2023 (June 7, 2024), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint involving claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.
This matter arose from the actions of Charles Cullen, a former nurse at St. Luke’s Hospital of Bethelem, who confessed to being involved in the death of several of his patients. John Vivian is an attorney who filed two Wrongful Death Actions claiming that St. Luke’s negligently supervised Cullen and overlooked warning signs related to Cullen’s care of the hospital’s patients conduct, resulting in Cullen administering unprescribed substances to Regina Miller and Marilyn Hall (“Decedents”), resulting in their deaths. Expert John J. Shane, M.D. supported the Certificate of Merit of both claims.
Cullen did not admit to any involvement in the deaths of Decedents, and he refused to testify in the underlying actions. Therefore, the Estates attempted to rely on a forensic pathology expert, Dr. David R. Fowler to prove Cullen’s causation of Decedents’ deaths. However, Dr. Fowler opined in his report that “[D]ecedents could neither be included nor excluded from the group identified as Cullen’s victims.” Without expert testimony, the trial court determined that the Estates could not establish a prima facie case of negligence, and therefore granted St. Luke’s motions for summary judgment.
Thereafter, St. Luke’s filed actions against Vivian, Dr. Shane, and the Estates in the Lehigh County court for wrongful use of civil proceedings under the Dragonetti Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8351-8354, abuse of process, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. St. Luke’s alleged generally that the defendants in the First Dragonetti Actions engaged in a scheme to file the Wrongful Death Actions in the absence of probable cause to support any connection between Cullen and the Decedents’ death. St. Luke’s also issued a press release, which included the following quote from St. Luke’s CEO:
At St. Luke’s, we believe it is our responsibility to respond to frivolous lawsuits which represent an inappropriate and unconscionable attempt to divert precious health care resources for personal financial gain. We believe the actions of these individuals and their attorneys are reprehensible and should not go unaddressed…St. Luke’s has a strong culture and belief system that guides us to do what is right. We measure all our decisions, all our actions, by this standard. Our patients, the communities we serve, our physicians and our staff deserve nothing less.
St. Luke’s discontinued the First Dragonetti Actions against the Estates. Vivian settled prior to trial, agreeing to pay St. Luke’s $10,000 to resolve all claims in those suits against him, and the matters were discontinued. Vivian sued St. Luke’s, its CEO, and their attorneys (“Defendants”) raising claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process. The complaint focused on the allegedly defamatory Press Release. The complaint further alleged that Defendants committed an abuse of process when, during the First Dragonetti Actions, St. Luke’s filed a motion for protective order asserting, inter alia, attorney-client privilege in response to Vivian’s notices of deposition of various St. Luke’s-aligned witnesses, forcing Vivian to waste time and money in responding to the motion, and in an attempt to dissuade injured citizens from filing meritorious actions against St. Luke’s.
The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Vivian: could not prove the falsity of the Defendants’ defamatory statements against him; did not identify a provable false fact; and failed to identify any process the Defendants abused. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed concluding that the news articles consisted of non-actionable opinion or true statements of fact.
The false light cause of action is defined as follows:
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Meyers v. Certified Guaranty Co., LLC, 221 A.3d 662, 674 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E). The Superior Court concluded that the Press Release consisted of true statements of fact, and statements of opinion that did not imply the existence of undisclosed false factual assertions. The Court explained that while the opinions offered about Vivian were clearly negative and critical, there was no evidence presented to show that any statement was false, or would have created a false impression of Vivian.
The abuse of process tort is defined as “the use of legal process against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed.” Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2008). The Court concluded that Vivian’s abuse of process claim failed because he did not show that Defendants’ conduct with respect to the discovery motions in the First Dragonetti Actions was primarily for “a purpose for which the process was not designed.”
The case of Vivian v. Blank Rome, 2024 PA Super 118, No. 1406 EDA 2023 (June 7, 2024) can be accessed here.
