Franklin v. Blank
| Citation | 1974 NMCA 86,86 N.M. 585,525 P.2d 945 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1391,1391 |
| Parties | James E. FRANKLIN, D.O., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William F. BLANK, M.D., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
The defendant a medical doctor, wrote and published an allegedly defamatory letter reporting alleged incidents of incompetence and unethical and illegal activities by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a doctor of osteopathy and the coroner of Bernalillo County.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the letter was published on an absolutely privileged occasion. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. The appeal of plaintiff raises three issues: (1) the matter of privilege or immunity; (2) proof of special damages; (3) the truthfulness of statements in defendant's letter. Although the issue of absolute privilege or immunity is dispositive of this appeal, we shall, nevertheless, answer briefly the other two issues raised by plaintiff's appeal.
The letter stated in part:
'C. D. Milligan, D.O., President
New Mexico Osteopathic Medical Assn.
2130 San Mateo Blvd., N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
'Sandford Kinne, D.O.
Chairman, Ethics Committee
New Mexico Osteopathic Medical Assn.
1517 4th Street, N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
'John B. Roberts, M.D., President
A&B County Medical Association
#3 Medical Arts Square, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
'Re: J. E. Franklin, D.O.
Coroner
Bernalillo County
'Gentlemen:
'I am asking that the New Mexico Osteopathic Medical Association, the Albuquerqe-Bernalillo County Medical Association and the Albuquerque Hospital Council consider independently or jointly, multitudinous complaints about the actions of the Coroner.
The letter went on to charge four specific items of misconduct.
Pursuant to this letter, there were several meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and a report was made. In this opinion we are using the term absolute privilege and absolute immunity interchangeably as announced by this court in Salazar v. Bjork, 85 N.M. 94, 509 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.1973). Absolute immunity or privilege is a question of law for the trial court to decide. Salazar v. Bjork, supra. Stryker v. Barbers Super Markets, Inc., 81 N.M. 44, 462 P.2d 629 (Ct.App.1969).
In Neece v. Kantu, 84 N.M. 700, 507 P.2d 447 (Ct.App.1973), we held that, '. . . defamation which takes place during the course of (quasi-judicial) labor-grievance-arbitration proceedings . . .,' is absolutely privileged. The policy reasons for according the same privilege to quasi-judicial proceedings involving peer review of alleged professional misconduct are at least equally compelling. The appropriate professional societies, by exercising peer review, can and do perform a great public service by exercising control over those persons placed in a position of public trust but nevertheless unfit to bear that responsibility. It is hardly open to dispute that communications initiating such proceedings are an indispensable part thereof and are to be protected by the privilege. Sinnett v. Albert, 188 Neb. 176, 195 N.W.2d 506 (1972); Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Ore. 383, 347 P.2d 594 (1959); see Romero v. Prince, 85 N.M. 474, 513 P.2d 717 (Ct.App.1973) ().
The rule in Sinnett and Ramstead apply to claimed defamatory statements made to a committee on inquiry of the State Bar Association or the grievance committee. The basis of these holdings apply with equal dignity to claimed defamatory statements made to initiate a hearing before an ad hoc committee or a grievance committee of the medical profession. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary an 'ad hoc committee' is one 'made, established, acting or concerned with a particular end or purpose.' This meaning is consonant with a grievance committee. Defendant repeatedly testified in his deposition that the letter was written to initiate peer review. Plaintiff also testified in his deposition that the letter was written to initiate peer review. This testimony was sufficient to invoke the applicability of the privilege and thereby make a prima facie showing that no material issue of fact existed. 'The burden was (then) on the plaintiff, as the party resisting the motion for summary judgment, to come forward and demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact requirng a trial did exist. * * *' Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 498 P.2d 676 (1972).
Plaintiff contends that a question of fact exists as to whether defendant was merely seeking to initiate peer review by transmitting information to the proper authorities, or whether the letter was, '* * * a full spread of defamation intended to be published to the (entire) profession. * * *' The support for this claim is said to be that the letter was sent, '* * * not to a grievance committee where the records are confidential, but to professional organizations that spread the defamatory matter throughout the medical community.'
The record shows that the defendant published the letter only to the three addressees and Mr. Richard Barr. The record does indicate that one or two other persons had copies of the letter, but the date of receipt and the person from whom it was obtained is not shown. Plaintiff and defendant testified that the Ad Hoc Committee were the proper authorities to contact to initiate peer review.
Furthermore, the fact that Dr. Kinne and Dr. Milligan, President of the same association, were named to an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate complaints against the plaintiff indicates that they were proper recipients of the letter. The committee, composed of medical doctors and osteopaths, was formed by the Osteopathic Association and the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Medical Association.
Informing the county medical association by sending the letter to its President, Dr. Roberts, was undoubtedly within the scope of initiating peer review. The association clearly had power to exercise peer review of osteopaths. Otherwise, it could not have taken part in the establishment of the ad hoc committee. In fact, the defendant testified that the inclusion of osteopaths on the Ad Hoc Committee was a courtesy to them since one of their number was involved.
Sending the letter to the heads of the relevant associations could also be justified since the officers play such a vital role in the entire grievance process. They named this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marchiondo v. New Mexico State Tribune Co., s. 5059
...negligently failed to exercise ordinary care in determining the truth or falsity of the word prior to communication. Franklin v. Blank, 86 N.M. 585, 525 P.2d 945 (1974). As observed in the introductory discussion to the jury instructions, at N.M.U.J.I. 10.0, the drafting committee The law o......
-
Salazar v. City of Albuquerque
...communication must be false in a material way. Insignificant inaccuracies of expression are not sufficient."). In Franklin v. Blank, 86 N.M. 585, 525 P.2d 945 (Ct. App. 1974), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico announced the converse of this rule, holding that a statement is not defamatory ......
-
Heyward v. Credit Union Times
...the communication must be false in a material way. Insignificant inaccuracies of expression are not sufficient.”). In Franklin v. Blank, 86 N.M. 585, 525 P.2d 945 (Ct.App.1974), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico announced the converse of this rule, holding that a statement is not defamator......
-
Heyward v. Credit Union Times
...the communication must be false in a material way. Insignificant inaccuracies of expression are not sufficient."). In Franklin v. Blank, 86 N.M. 585, 525 P.2d 945 (Ct. App. 1974), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico announced the converse of this rule, holding that a statement is not defamat......