Cohn v. National Enquirer, 698 N.E.2d 1175 (N.Y. 1998)

A statement about a person’s illness, specifically cancer, is not per se defamatory unless it reflects on their professional abilities or imputes a loathsome disease.

Summary

This case addresses whether publishing that a public relations consultant had cancer constitutes defamation. The plaintiff argued that the statement implied impending death, causing clients to lose confidence, or that cancer was a condition odious enough to repel clients. The court held that the statement was not defamatory because it did not reflect on the consultant’s ability to perform her job, nor did it impute a loathsome disease. The court emphasized that in today’s society, individuals with cancer often continue their professional lives without negative repercussions.

Facts

The National Enquirer published a statement in its August 27, 1991, issue stating that plaintiffs’ decedent, a public relations consultant, had cancer. The plaintiffs argued this was defamatory, claiming it would cause clients to lose confidence or view her condition as repulsive. The plaintiffs offered no specific proof of damages resulting from the publication.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the statement that plaintiffs’ decedent had cancer is defamatory per se because it injures her in her trade, business, or profession.

2. Whether the statement that plaintiffs’ decedent had cancer is defamatory because it imputes a loathsome disease.

Holding

1. No, because the statement did not reflect on her performance or ability to conduct her business.

2. No, because cancer is not considered a loathsome disease as it is neither contagious nor attributed to socially repugnant conduct.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that for a statement to be defamatory in a professional context, it must reflect on the person’s performance or be incompatible with the proper conduct of their business. The court stated that the statement about the decedent having cancer “did not impugn, or even relate to, any particular talent or ability needed to perform in decedent’s profession as a publicist.” The court emphasized that merely stating someone has cancer does not imply they are incompetent or unfit. The court cited Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, noting, “[p]ersons afflicted with cancer or other serious diseases, whether debilitating only or ultimately fatal, frequently carry on their personal or professional activities in today’s enlightened world in normal fashion and without any deprecatory reflection whatsoever.” Furthermore, the court held that cancer is not a “loathsome disease” because it is not contagious nor linked to socially unacceptable behavior. Because the statements were not defamatory against the decedent personally, the corporate plaintiff’s claims also failed.