 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts6/11/2004
Suffolk.
February 2, 2004.
Libel and Slander. Actionable Tort.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 9, 2002.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Patrick J. Riley, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Roy Albert White, a former employee of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (Blue Cross), commenced an action in the Superior Court seeking to hold Blue Cross liable for allegedly defamatory statements made to White while he was employed by Blue Cross and subsequently communicated by White to prospective employers. A Superior Court judge allowed Blue Cross's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted because White conceded that Blue Cross had not communicated the defamatory statements to any third party. Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). White appealed, and we transferred the case here on our own motion to consider whether we should recognize the doctrine of compelled self-publication defamation. We decline to do so, and affirm the judgment.
1. Background.
As alleged in his complaint, White was previously employed as a "quality initiatives manager" for Blue Cross. In January, 2002, he attended a meeting with representatives of Milton Hospital and Winchester Hospital to plan a conference for a health care financial management association. On March 19, 2002, White was called to a meeting with Patrick Cuniff, Blue Cross's director of human resources, and Allen Hinkle, its vice-president of innovation, quality, and cost. Hinkle informed White that a complaint had been received from Winchester Hospital to the effect that White, while in the presence of representatives from the other hospitals, had divulged the details of a confidential financial settlement between Blue Cross and Winchester Hospital. Hinkle told White he would be discharged immediately because of this conduct. White denied the accusation, and claims that he did not even know about any settlement between Blue Cross and Winchester Hospital, let alone divulge its details to anyone. Despite White's request that Blue Cross investigate the matter further, Cuniff did not do so, allegedly acting on the advice of a lawyer.
White subsequently applied for numerous jobs in health care management, to no avail. This was predictable, he alleges, because most prospective employers inquired about his reason for leaving Blue Cross. Because he refused "to lie," he was "compelled," he says, to reveal that he was discharged "for allegedly disclosing confidential financial information."
As noted earlier, White does not claim that Blue Cross communicated the alleged defamatory statements (the accusation that he improperly divulged confidential information) to any third person. He argues that his own disclosure of Hinkle's accusation to prospective employers permits him to recover from Blue Cross for defamation because such disclosure should have been reasonably foreseeable by Blue Cross.
2. Discussion.
To prevail on a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant was at fault for the publication of a false statement regarding the plaintiff, capable of damaging the plaintiff's reputation in the community, which either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss. See Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 629-630 (2003). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 558 (1977). The publication element of defamation requires that the defendant communicate the defamatory statement to a third party. Id. at 629; Hiles v. Episcopal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|