 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grudzinski v. Thayer2/14/2002
Christina B. Grudzinski, M.D., appeals from a judgment entered in her defamation action against four physicians at University of California, Irvine (UCI). Portions of her case were dismissed after the granting of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The remainder was dismissed after a five-week jury trial which resulted in a unanimous verdict against her. Appellant challenges various pretrial, trial and posttrial rulings by the trial judge. We affirm.
I. FACTS
We incorporate the facts recited in the unpublished decision of consolidated case (Christina B. Grudzinski v. University of California et al. (Feb. 14, 2002, G023336, G024162) [nonpub. opn.].)
Allegations in the instant action are libel, slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of statements made by appellant's co-workers, Doctors Kim Thayer, David Keschner, Maria Chand and Greg Mueller. Appellant has not appealed from the granting of respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action after the court ruled the allegations were insufficient for a trier of fact to conclude respondents' conduct was outrageous.
Grudzinski claims respondents first made slanderous publications to Dr. Deborah Stewart who was investigating appellant's conduct for UCI. (Appellant was threatening, made chart alterations, refused to give sign outs on patients.) She says the second line of publications was to ombudsman Ron Wilson, who was attempting to resolve appellant's complaints about sexual harassment for UCI. (Appellant altered patient medical records and was a threat and danger to patient care.) According to Grudzinski, the third line of publications was made to other residents. (Appellant was absent during call, mismanaged her patient, was a bad doctor, was unprofessional, did not know how to take care of patients and was incompetent.) She argues the fourth line of publications was made to union representative, Jim Smith. (Appellant was a danger to patients, was a bad doctor and had falsified medical records.) She says Chand wrote two libelous letters dated April 20 and May 5, 1995.
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants Keshner and Mueller and summary adjudication to defendants Thayer and Chand. Appellant represented herself at the trial, which began on September 29, 1997. On October 29, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the two remaining defendants.
On appeal appellant claims error in the trial court's granting summary judgment and summary adjudication, making certain evidentiary rulings, not giving her a fair trial, denying a motion for new trial and declaring her to be a vexatious litigant.
II. DISCUSSION
Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication of Issues
This court reviews the trial court's grant of summary judgment and summary adjudication of issues de novo. (Buss v. Superior Court (1999) 16 Cal.4th 35, 60; Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1506-1507.) A trial court's ruling will be affirmed if it is correct on any legal theory so long as the ground was raised by the moving party. (Kramer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 332, 336.)
Although no written ruling of the court is provided, it appears the trial judge's ruling on the motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication was based upon the privileges provided in two statutes.
Civil Code Section 43.8
The words of Civil Code section 43.8 are clear: " here shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any person on
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|