Legal Aspects Of Health Care Administration 11th Edition by George Pozgar

تمرين 7

Facts
On October 2, a young woman entered the emergency department of a hospital complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. Dr. Lapica, the emergency physician on duty, saw her. Dr. Lapica diagnosed the patient as suffering from a possible pneumo-hemothorax, which required the placement of a chest tube to drain accumulated fluids. Dr. Lapica contacted Dr. Chowdhry, a physician who had recently performed surgery on the young woman and who was also the on-call thoracic surgeon at the hospital, and informed Dr. Chowdhry that his services were required at the hospital. The record revealed that Dr. Chowdhry refused to return to the hospital to treat the patient because he had recently left there and would treat her only if she were transferred to University Medical Center (UMC). Dr. Chowdhry testified that he could not return to the hospital because of a conflicting emergency at UMC.
Dr. Lapica then contacted the hospital's chief of staff, Dr. Wilchins, and told him that Dr. Chowdhry refused to come to the hospital and attend to the patient. Both physicians concluded that if the patient could be safely transported to UMC, the transfer should be affected so that Dr. Chowdhry could treat her.
The patient was ultimately transported to UMC where Dr. Lapica and Ms. Crow, the supervising nurse at the hospital, prepared incident reports detailing the events and submitted them to the administrator, Mr. Moore.
On October 3, Mr. Moore informed Dr. Silver, UMC's Chief of Surgery, that Dr. Chowdhry had refused to come to the hospital emergency department to treat the patient. The matter was directed to the hospital's surgery committee, which recommended summary suspension of Dr. Chowdhry's staff privileges.
On November 1, in response to Dr. Chowdhry's request, a hearing was held before the medical executive committee. As a result of the hearing, Dr. Chowdhry's staff privileges were reinstated, but a reprimand was placed in his file for jeopardizing himself, the patient, and the hospital. The hospital denied Dr. Chowdhry's subsequent request to have the reprimand expunged from his record, thus prompting Dr. Chowdhry to file an action against the hospital, Dr. Silver, Mr. Moore, Dr. Wilchins, and Dr. Lapica.
Chowdhry's complaint alleged theories of liability based upon negligence, breach of contract, conspiracy, defamation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court concluded that Dr. Chowdhry had no reasonable basis for bringing the action and awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the defendants, and Dr. Chowdhry appealed.
Issue
Did the district court err in dismissing the claims of defamation and infliction of emotional distress?
Holding
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the claims of defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Reason
Dr. Chowdhry's emotional distress claims are premised upon respondents' accusations of patient abandonment. Dr. Chowdhry testified that as a result, "he was very upset" and could not sleep. Insomnia and general physical or emotional discomfort were found to be insufficient to satisfy the physical impact requirement for emotional distress. Thus, Dr. Chowdhry failed, as a matter of law, to present sufficient evidence to sustain verdicts for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
To establish a prima facie case of defamation, a plaintiff must prove (1) a false and defamatory statement by defendant concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person, (3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and (4) actual or presumed damages. The actual statements made by the various respondents were not that Dr. Chowdhry "abandoned" his patient, but that he "failed to respond" or "would not come" to the hospital to treat his patient. The record reflected that the respondents made the statements to hospital personnel and other interested parties (e.g., the patient's mother) in the context of reporting what was reasonably perceived to be Dr. Chowdhry's refusal to treat the patient at the hospital. The statements attributable to the respondents, taken in context, are not reasonably capable of a defamatory construction.
Explain what a plaintiff must prove in order to establish an action for defamation.