474 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2007), 06-2299, Schindler v. Seiler

Docket Nº:06-2299.
Citation:474 F.3d 1008
Party Name:Jay J. SCHINDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. SEILER and Synthes Spine Company, L.P., Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:February 05, 2007
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 1008

474 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2007)

Jay J. SCHINDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,


Joseph C. SEILER and Synthes Spine Company, L.P., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-2299.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 5, 2007

Argued November 29, 2006.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 05 C 521-Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

Page 1009

Carol S. Dittmar (argued), Chippewa Falls, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert J. Kasieta, Madison, WI, Anthony B. Haller (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before Bauer, Cudahy, and Rovner, Circuit Judges.

Bauer, Circuit Judge.

Dr. Jay J. Schindler appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of Joseph Seiler and Seiler's employer, Synthes Spine Company, L.P. ("Synthes"). Dr. Schindler brought this diversity action, alleging that Seiler had defamed him by informing a third party, Dr. Kerry White, that Dr. Schindler was a "bad doctor" who had "paralyzed four patients." Both Seiler and Dr. White deny that Seiler made these statements.

The sole evidence offered by Dr. Schindler to prove that these statements were made was his own testimony that Dr. White had said to him, "Joe Seiler is downstairs right now and just told me that you paralyzed four patients." The district

Page 1010

court ruled that Dr. Schindler's testimony about what Dr. White had said to him was in admissable hearsay and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

I. Analysis

Because the district court's decision to grant summary judgment is premised on its evidentiary finding, a combined standard of review is appropriate. Corder v. Lucent Technologies Inc., 162 F.3d 924, 927 (7th Cir. 1998). "We review a district court's decision that a particular hearsay statement is not admissible under an abuse of discretion standard." United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095, 1108 (7th Cir. 1999). However, we review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sartor v. Spherion Corp., 388 F.3d 275, 277-78 (7th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must present admissible evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact...

To continue reading