MLS Nat'l Med. Evaluation Servs., Inc. v. Templin, Case No. 10–14649.

• Decision Date: 16 May 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–14649.
• Citation: 812 F.Supp.2d 788
• Parties: MLS NATIONAL MEDICAL EVALUATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. James W. TEMPLIN, M.D., and the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

812 F.Supp.2d 788

MLS NATIONAL MEDICAL EVALUATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff,

v.James W. TEMPLIN, M.D., and the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Defendants.

Case No. 10–14649.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

May 16, 2011.

Ruben Acosta, Williams Acosta, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Charles E. Griffiths, Waterford, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 12, 2010, Plaintiff MLS National Medical Evaluation Services, Inc., a Michigan corporation, commenced this suit in a Michigan state court against Defendant James Templin, M.D., a Kentucky physician, and a California-based publication that addresses law-related subjects, the Los Angeles Daily Journal. In its three-count complaint, Plaintiff has asserted claims of defamation/libel, false light invasion of privacy, and injurious falsehood, with each of these claims arising from an October 2009 article published by the Defendant Daily Journal in which Plaintiff was accused of altering a report of an independent medical examination performed by Defendant Templin, and in which Dr. Templin was quoted as stating that Plaintiff forged his name on this report. The Defendant Daily Journal removed the case to this Court on November 22, 2010, citing the parties' diverse citizenship as the ground for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).¹

By motion filed on February 3, 2011, Defendant Templin seeks the dismissal of the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, Defendant contends that the issue of personal jurisdiction—or, more accurately, the lack thereof—should be deemed conclusively resolved against Plaintiff, in light of the Court's ruling in an earlier suit brought by Plaintiff that personal jurisdiction over Defendant Templin was lacking in that case. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion on February 25, 2011, arguing that Dr. Templin purposefully availed himself of a Michigan forum by making false and defamatory statements about a Michigan-based company in an article that was likely to be widely distributed, and that this Court's prior ruling on personal jurisdiction is not entitled to issue-preclusive effect because the issues presented here and in the earlier suit are not identical.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions in support of and opposition to Defendant's motion, as well as the record as a whole, the Court finds that the relevant allegations, facts, and legal arguments are adequately presented in these written materials, and that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the Court will decide Defendant's motion “on the briefs.” See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. This opinion sets forth the Court's rulings on this motion.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff MLS National Medical Evaluation Services, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Oakland County, Michigan. Plaintiff arranges independent medical evaluations (“IMEs”) for insurance companies, employers, and other clients. Once a physician has performed an IME at Plaintiff's request, the physician furnishes a report of the examination to Plaintiff, either by faxing it to Plaintiff's office in Michigan or by dictating his or her findings by telephone into a recording system maintained in Plaintiff's Michigan office. Plaintiff then transmits the physician's IME report to its client.

A. The Prior Suit Brought By Plaintiff Against Defendant Templin

In late 2003, Plaintiff was asked by one of its clients, Wausau Benefits, Inc., to arrange an IME of Terry Hall, a Kentucky resident who claimed he was totally disabled due to chronic back pain. Plaintiff, in turn, contacted Defendant James W. Templin, M.D., who agreed to perform an IME of Mr. Hall at his office in Lexington, Kentucky. Defendant Templin examined Mr. Hall on December 5, 2003, and then dictated his findings by telephone into Plaintiff's digital dictation system in Michigan. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Templin concluded in this report that Mr. Hall was not totally disabled, but rather was capable of working within certain specified restrictions. Plaintiff forwarded this report to Wausau Benefits, and Mr. Hall's claim for disability benefits was denied.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, Dr. Templin provided Mr. Hall with a copy of his IME findings that he had dictated and prepared at his own office, and this report allegedly differed in certain respects from the report dictated into Plaintiff's digital recording system. According to the complaint, Defendant Templin was “pressured by Hall's lawyers to alter his opinion of Hall's disability status,” and he “ultimately agreed to change his opinion” to conclude that Hall was disabled. (Complaint at ¶¶ 32–33.) Upon learning of this, Plaintiff asked Defendant Templin to provide a clarification of his earlier report, and the doctor responded by issuing an “addendum” in which he opined that Mr. Hall was totally disabled and unable to perform any type of work. ( Id. at ¶¶ 34–35.)

In 2006, Mr. Hall filed suit against Plaintiff in a Kentucky state court, alleging that Wausau Benefits had denied his claim for disability benefits as a result of a report produced by Plaintiff that did not accurately convey Dr. Templin's IME findings. Plaintiff, in turn, brought suit against Defendant Templin in January of 2008 in a Michigan state court, asserting state-law claims of breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, fraud, and negligent or innocent misrepresentation. Plaintiff's suit was removed to this Court on diversity grounds, but in an opinion issued on July 9, 2008, the Court dismissed this earlier action for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Templin. See MLS National Medical Evaluation Services, Inc. v. Templin, No. 08–11653, 2008 WL 2704672 (E.D.Mich. July 9, 2008).

B. The Los Angeles Daily Journal Article Giving Rise to the Present Suit

On October 13, 2009, the Defendant Los Angeles Daily Journal published an article entitled “Doctors Paid To Aid Insurers In Disability Claim Denials.” (Plaintiff's Complaint, Ex. F.) ² This lengthy article described the general process used by insurers to handle claims for disability benefits, quoted legal experts in this field, and discussed a number of specific cases that illustrated purported flaws in the system for processing disability claims.

In a passage subtitled “Altered Report,” the Daily Journal article recounted Mr. Hall's difficulties in obtaining disability benefits for his chronic back pain. The article referenced Plaintiff by name, stating that it was “a Michigan-based firm that describes itself as a national leader in independent medical assessments.” ( Id. at 5.) The article then suggested that Plaintiff had altered Defendant Templin's report of his examination of Mr. Hall, stating that “[w]hen Dr. James Templin compared his own notes against the official copy that MLS sent to the insurance company, he did not recognize entire sentences.” ( Id.) The article further stated that while the “doctor's report prepared by MLS” indicated that Mr. Hall was capable of sedentary work, Defendant Templin “had come to the opposite conclusion about the patient,” finding that there was no work he could perform. ( Id.)

The article described Defendant Templin as “so horrified” by the purported discrepancies between his IME findings and the report given by Plaintiff to the insurer that he “sent his original notes to Hall, who sued MLS for allegedly tampering with the medical report during transcription in order to deny his claim.” ( Id.) The article also quoted Dr. Templin as stating that “[t]hey forged my name and they admitted to it,” that “[t]hey can do anything they want,” and that “it is nearly fool proof because doctors always dictate straight into their system.” ( Id. at 5–6.) The article noted, however, that Plaintiff had denied adding new sentences to Defendant Templin's report. ( Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff states that it first learned of the Daily Journal article in late October of 2009, when it was in negotiations with a prospective client for a “major contract” for its “independent medical evaluation and peer review services.” (Plaintiff's Response, Ex. A, Schimizzi Aff. at ¶¶ 8–9.) According to Plaintiff, this prospective client “abruptly cancelled all further negotiations,” citing the Daily Journal article and Defendant Templin's quoted statements in the article as the reasons for discontinuing the parties' discussions. ( Id. at ¶ 12.) This lawsuit followed on October 12, 2010, with Plaintiff asserting claims of defamation/libel, false light invasion of privacy, and injurious falsehood against the Daily Journal and Dr. Templin. ³

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Standards Governing Defendant's Motion

Through his present motion, Defendant Templin seeks the dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. As the party bringing suit in a Michigan forum, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the Court may permissibly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir.2002). Because the Court is resolving this issue solely upon the written record and without an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 887 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To make this prima facie showing, Plaintiff must “establish[ ] with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between [Defendant Templin] and the forum state to support jurisdiction.” Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 887 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). More specifically, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dr....