Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
Decision Date | 24 February 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14–P–717.,14–P–717. |
Citation | 89 Mass.App.Ct. 97,46 N.E.3d 79 |
Parties | Lynne BLANCHARD & others v. STEWARD CARNEY HOSPITAL, INC., & others. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Jeffrey A. Dretler, Boston (Katharine A. Crawford & Joseph W. Ambash, Boston, with him) for the defendants.
Dahlia C. Rudavsky, Boston, for the plaintiffs.
Present: KATZMANN, SULLIVAN, & BLAKE, JJ.
KATZMANN
, J.
In this case we consider whether the defendants' special motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation claim pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 59H
, widely known as the “anti-SLAPP”3 statute, was properly denied. The central question is whether, during a period of crisis when Steward Carney Hospital (Carney Hospital or hospital) faced the loss of its license to operate an in-patient adolescent psychiatric unit (unit) because of purported patient abuse and neglect, statements quoted in a newspaper made by the president of the hospital, and an electronic mail message (e-mail) the president sent to hospital staff announcing the dismissal of unnamed employees in the unit under review, constituted protected petitioning activity. A judge in the Superior Court denied the motion because she found that the statements upon which the claim was based did not qualify as protected petitioning activity and, therefore, the defendants could not seek protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude that the statements quoted in the newspaper constitute protected petitioning activity, but that the internal e-mail does not. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Background. The key facts of this case, as derived from the judge's decision below, the newspaper articles at issue, affidavits by those involved in the investigation, testimony in a related arbitration proceeding (see note 4, infra ), and relevant reports, are as follows. The plaintiffs are all registered nurses (RNs) who had been working in the unit for a number of years. In April, 2011, complaints were made concerning four incidents of alleged patient abuse or neglect within the unit. None of the alleged incidents involved abuse or neglect of a patient by any of the plaintiffs (or any other RN). The incidents were reported to the Department of Mental Health (DMH), the Department of Public Health (DPH), and the Department of Children and Families
(DCF) by unit RNs or other staff. The unit is licensed by DMH and DPH. After the April complaints, the agencies, especially DMH, were regularly on site to investigate the incidents and to determine whether to revoke the license to operate the unit. The director of licensing at DMH reported making unannounced visits on different occasions, including weekends and holidays,so that she could “see in fact what was happening.”
In late April, 2011, in response to the incidents, Carney Hospital placed all mental health counselors, all regularly assigned unit RNs (including the plaintiffs), and two managers on paid administrative leave. The hospital then hired Attorney Scott Harshbarger and his law firm, Proskauer Rose, LLP (Proskauer defendants), to conduct an overall management review of the unit and make recommendations. Harshbarger interviewed unit staff, including each of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs identified specific issues that affected patient care and areas for improvement. On May 13, 2011, Harshbarger made an oral report of his conclusions to the hospital's then president, William Walczak; Harshbarger submitted his written report on May 26, 2011. In the report, which made no specific allegations of abuse or neglect against any of the individual plaintiffs or any member of the nursing staff, Harshbarger recommended that the hospital “rebuild” the unit by replacing all of its personnel. The report cited “serious weaknesses” in the supervisory and managerial structure of the unit, including, inter alia, “lack of a clear reporting structure, lack of accountability, oversight of patient care and quality, patient and staff safety concerns, and a flawed and rarely invoked disciplinary process.” The report cited a “code of silence” as one of the underlying sources and causes of operational and performance dysfunction. “This code results in a failure to report issues or concerns, and to reinforce a general attitude that reporting can trigger retaliation, intimidation, and/or be ignored or unsupported by others.” The report concluded that “it would be prudent to replace the current personnel in order to ensure quality care” for the patients.
The day that Walczak received Harshbarger's report, he sent a letter to each plaintiff terminating her for her “conduct at work.”4
On May 27, 2011, Walczak sent an e-mail to all hospital staff, which stated in pertinent part:
finding that neither Walczak's statements to the Boston Globe nor his e-mail to the hospital staff constituted protected petitioning activity. The Steward defendants now appeal from the denial of their motion.
Discussion. 1. Overview. a. The anti-SLAPP statute. The anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H
, “protects the ‘exercise of [the] right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the [C]ommonwealth,’ by creating a procedural mechanism, in the form of a special motion to dismiss, for the expedient resolution of so-called ‘SLAPP’ suits.” Office One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113, 121, 769 N.E.2d 749 (2002) (Office One, Inc. ). “In the preamble to 1994 House Doc. No. 1520, the Legislature recognized that ... ‘there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances.’ ” Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 161, 691 N.E.2d 935 (1998) (Duracraft ). Under the “well-established [two-part] burden-shifting test,” Hanover v. New England Regional Council of Carpenters, 467 Mass. 587, 595, 6 N.E.3d 522 (2014), “[t]o invoke the statute's protection, the special movant[s], [here, the Steward defendants, must] show, as a threshold matter, through pleadings and affidavits, that the claims against [them] are ... ‘based on’ [their] petitioning activities alone and have no substantial basis other than or in addition to [their] petitioning activities.” Office One, Inc., supra at 122, 769 N.E.2d 749, citing Duracraft, supra at 167–168, 691 N.E.2d 935. Wenger v. Aceto, 451 Mass. 1, 5, 883 N.E.2d 262 (2008) (Wenger ). This is the first prong of the test. Under the second prong, if the special m...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
...781 N.E.2d 780 (2002). The Appeals Court then reversed the motion judge's decision in part. See Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc ., 89 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 98, 46 N.E.3d 79 (2016). We granted the parties' applications for further appellate review. We conclude that a portion of the plainti......
-
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
...denied the motion, and the hospital defendants appealed. The Appeals Court reversed in part, see Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 98, 46 N.E.3d 79 (2016), and we granted further appellate review. We concluded that Walczak's statements to hospital employees were......
-
Reichenbach v. Another
...examining the allegations of the complaint, our review is "fresh and independent," i.e., de novo.14 Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 103, 46 N.E.3d 79 (2016), S.C., 477 Mass. 141, 75 N.E.3d 21 (2017). Special movants survive the threshold phase of the Duracraft......
-
Steinmetz v. Coyle & Caron, Inc.
...in the petitioning activity under circumstances similar to those this record reveals"); see also Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc. , 89 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 46 N.E.3d 79, 85 (2016) (holding that the president of a hospital, although "not personally aggrieved by [governmental] agencies' ac......