Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co.

• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CRADLE, J.
• Citation: Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn.App. 851, 287 A.3d 177 (Conn. App. 2022)
• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: AC 44977
• Parties: Ammar IDLIBI v. HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY

216 Conn.App. 851

287 A.3d 177

Ammar IDLIBI

v.HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY

AC 44977

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 12, 2022

Officially Released December 13, 2022

Ammar A. Idlibi, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

William S. Fish, Jr., with whom was Alexa T. Millinger, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).

Cradle, Suarez and Seeley, Js.

CRADLE, J.

The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar Idlibi, a pediatric dentist, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Hartford Courant Company, on his claims of defamation and intentional misrepresentation.¹ This appeal arises from two articles the defendant published reporting on the plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings before the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Connecticut State Dental Commission (commission). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously (1) concluded that the fair report privilege applied to the allegedly defamatory statements made by the defendant, and (2) rendered summary judgment on the plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation claim. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record before the court, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party on the prevailing motion for summary judgment, reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff was the subject of two separate disciplinary proceedings beginning in 2013 and 2016. The first proceeding followed allegations that the plaintiff improperly prescribed medications, outside the scope of dentistry, to himself and his family.²

The second proceeding arose from the plaintiff's treatment of a three year old patient on April 26, 2016. On the scheduled treatment date, the plaintiff placed the patient under general anesthesia and placed crowns on eight of her teeth without the consent of the patient's mother, who had provided informed consent for the placement of only one crown. The patient's mother submitted a complaint to DPH, which subsequently led to charges before the commission. A panel of commissioners (panel) conducted hearings on January 11 and 16, 2018, following which the panel submitted a proposed decision to the commission, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-179,³ and notified the plaintiff and DPH's attorney that a hearing on the proposed decision would be held before the full commission on September 5, 2018.⁴

On or about August 31, 2018, prior to the plaintiff's full commission hearing, Matthew Ormseth, a reporter employed by the defendant, called the plaintiff and left him the following voicemail message: "Hi, Ammar, my name is Matt Ormseth. I'm a reporter with the Hartford Courant. ... [A] woman who put her daughter into Smile by Design⁵ ... a few weeks ago told me that her daughter went through a pretty traumatic experience there and ended up having four teeth extracted and having eight stainless steel crowns installed in about a half hour, and she's very concerned about this. And she's going to DPH, and ... I learned from DPH that ... you're being investigated for doing something similar to a three year old girl, and you've got a hearing coming up on September 5th, and ... I just want to hear your side of the story and ... give you the opportunity to respond to some of these complaints, some of these allegations. ..." (Footnote added.) Ormseth then provided his phone number and encouraged the plaintiff to call him back. The plaintiff later returned Ormseth's call, but the substance of their discussion is disputed by the parties. The plaintiff alleges that Ormseth never informed the plaintiff that he would be the subject of the published article, and Ormseth avers that he did.

On September 5, 2018, before the plaintiff's commission hearing, the defendant published an article, authored by Ormseth, entitled "State Probes Terryville Dentist for Excessive Work on Children's Teeth" (first article). The article included an image of a child undergoing a dental procedure.⁶ Following the image, the article begins with the following statements: "The 3-year-old girl had been told she needed a crown. When the operation was over, she had eight.

"After a two-year investigation, the state Department of Public Health has concluded the work was unnecessary and medically unsound, and recommended that the man who did it, Terryville dentist Ammar Idlibi, be fined, put on probation and be monitored regularly. A hearing before the state's dental oversight board is set for Wednesday."

The first article then includes information from an interview with David Dearborn, a spokesperson for the Department of Social Services (DSS). Among the information attributed to Dearborn is the following statistic published in the first article: "In Connecticut, just 37 steel crowns were placed on kids under general anesthesia who were insured by Medicaid in the last fiscal year." The first article subsequently states that, "[d]espite the DPH inquiry and a $2,000 penalty in 2014 for prescribing codeine, Xanax, Valium and other drugs outside the scope of dentistry to himself and family members, [the plaintiff] has been allowed to keep practicing and treating children. His license was not suspended while DPH investigated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

On the same day, September 5, 2018, after conducting its hearing, the commission concluded that "the plaintiff (1) failed to obtain adequate informed consent from the patient's mother to place crowns on eight of the patient's teeth, (2) placed one or more crowns without adequate justification, (3) failed to chart findings of cervical decalcification adequately, (4) failed to attempt treatment of the cervical decalcification by other means, and (5) failed to chart caries or other dental disease adequately for one or more of the teeth that was crowned. The only charge that the commission did not find against the plaintiff was the allegation that the plaintiff had failed to make adequate attempts at treatment without general anesthesia, as the commission determined there was insufficient evidence to support that charge. Subsequently, the commission ordered sanctions against the plaintiff, including the payment of a $10,000 civil penalty, placement of a reprimand on his license, and a three year probationary period during which his license would be subject to conditions."⁷

Idlibi v. State Dental Commission , 212 Conn. App. 501, 510–11, 275 A.3d 1214, cert. denied, 345 Conn. 904, 282 A.3d 980 (2022).

Later that same day, the defendant published a second article—this one entitled: "Dental Board Disciplines Terryville Dentist for Doing Unnecessary Work on 3-Year-Old" (second article). The second article reported on the commission's decision and then largely restated the same information published in the first article.

On August 26, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action by way of a four count complaint alleging defamation, intentional misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence. On January 22, 2021, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all four counts of the plaintiff's complaint.⁸ As to the defamation claim, the defendant argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it was protected from liability for defamation under the fair report privilege and substantial truth doctrine. The defendant further asserted that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the defendant acted with actual malice to succeed on his defamation claim. Regarding the intentional misrepresentation claim, the defendant argued that the claim was legally insufficient.

In his opposition to the defendant's motion, filed February 16, 2021, the plaintiff responded that five statements from the two articles were false and, further, the defendant was not entitled to the fair report privilege on the basis thereof: the first article's headline; the statement that DPH conducted a two year investigation into the plaintiff; the statement that DPH concluded that the plaintiff's treatment of the patient was unnecessary and medically unsound; the statistic that "37 steel crowns were placed on kids under general anesthesia who were insured by Medicaid" in the previous year; and the statement regarding the plaintiff's prescribing medications outside the scope of dentistry to himself and his family. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that Ormseth's August 31, 2018 voicemail message provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of intentional misrepresentation. In response, the defendant asserted that the statements identified by the plaintiff were substantially true and privileged. The plaintiff subsequently filed a surreply memorandum on April 12, 2021, reasserting that the five statements listed in his memorandum in opposition of summary judgment were defamatory and not privileged.⁹

In its August 6, 2021 memorandum of decision, the court found in favor of the defendant and rendered summary judgment on the plaintiff's defamation claim because the alleged defamatory statements were protected under either the fair report privilege or the substantial truth doctrine.¹⁰ Moreover, the court held that, "[b]ecause Ormseth's affirmative representation was true, because he had no duty to tell the plaintiff he would be the subject of [the defendant's] article, and because the plaintiff had no legal right to interfere with the [defendant's] publication of a story about him, the [defendant] is entitled to summary judgment on" the plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation claim. Following the court's rendering of summary judgment, on August 12, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to reargue. The court denied that motion on September 8, 2021. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedure will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in (1) concluding that the fair report privilege provided grounds for granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's defamation claims, and (...