Dempsky v. New York State Dept. of Education, 449 N.E.2d 518 (N.Y. 1983)
r
r
A qualified privilege protects a physician’s communication to the Education Department regarding a former assistant’s misconduct and a carbon copy sent to another physician with a related professional interest, barring a libel action without proof of malice.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns a libel action brought by a physician’s assistant against a physician who sent a letter to the New York State Department of Education alleging professional misconduct, with a copy to another physician. The New York Court of Appeals held that both publications were subject to a qualified privilege, protecting the physician from a libel claim unless the assistant could prove malice. The court reasoned that the communication to the Education Department was privileged due to its role in overseeing physician’s assistants, and the communication to the other physician was privileged due to their shared professional interest in patient care and handling of patient files. The court found no evidence of malice, and granted summary judgment for the physician.
r
r
Facts
r
Dr. Dempsky hired plaintiff as a physician’s assistant. While Dr. Dempsky was on vacation, Dr. Chalom supervised the plaintiff. The plaintiff resigned and later accepted a position with Dr. Chalom. Dr. Dempsky discovered that a large number of patient files were missing. Suspecting the plaintiff, Dr. Dempsky sent a letter to the New York State Department of Education, specifically to “Dr. William Sipple, Assistant Executive Secretary Physician’s Assistant Licensure Board,” alleging that the plaintiff had stolen confidential clinical records. A carbon copy of the letter was sent to Dr. Chalom and the county Sheriff, although the letter to the Sheriff was never delivered.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Plaintiff filed a libel action against Dr. Dempsky based on the publication of the letter to the Education Department and the copy to Dr. Chalom. The Supreme Court denied Dr. Dempsky’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, but granted Dr. Dempsky leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the publication of an allegedly defamatory letter by a physician to the New York State Department of Education concerning that physician’s former assistant is subject to a qualified privilege.
r
Whether the publication of a carbon copy of the letter to a fellow physician with whom the author had a previous and continuing relationship giving rise to a common interest in the contents of the letter is likewise subject to a qualified privilege.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the communication to the Education Department, responsible for overseeing physician’s assistants, is subject to a qualified privilege.
r
Yes, because the communication to Dr. Chalom, with whom Dr. Dempsky shared a common interest in patient care and the proper handling of patient files, is also subject to a qualified privilege.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that a qualified privilege applies when a communication is made to protect a legitimate interest or duty, and it extends to communications made to those who share a common interest. The letter to the Education Department was privileged because it concerned a complaint of professional misconduct to the body responsible for regulating physician’s assistants. The court noted the importance of allowing individuals to report potential misconduct without fear of liability, absent malice.
r
As for the copy sent to Dr. Chalom, the court emphasized the existing professional relationship between the two physicians and Dr. Chalom’s role in supervising the plaintiff. The court stated,