Schindler v. Seiler

Decision Date05 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06-2299.,06-2299.
Citation474 F.3d 1008
PartiesJay J. SCHINDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. SEILER and Synthes Spine Company, L.P., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

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 court ruled that Dr. Schindler's testimony about what Dr. White had said to him was inadmissable 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. Rogers v. City of Chicago, 320 F.3d 748, 751 (7th Cir. 2003).

As a federal court sitting in diversity, we apply Wisconsin state law to resolve substantive questions and federal law to resolve evidentiary issues. Bevolo v. Carter, 447 F.3d 979, 982 (7th Cir.2006). Under Wisconsin state law, an action for defamation has three elements: (1) the statement must be false; (2) the statement must be communicated by speech, conduct or in writing to a person other than the person defamed; and (3) the communication must be unprivileged and tend to harm one's reputation so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her. Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 210 Wis.2d 524, 534, 563 N.W.2d 472, 477 (Wis.1997). In an action for slander, "the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint." Wis. Stat. § 802.03(6). Thus, to prove his claim of defamation against Seiler and Synthes, Dr. Schindler must offer evidence that Seiler said to Dr. White that Dr. Schindler is a "bad doctor" who had "paralyzed four patients." Because Dr. Schindler offered no admissible evidence that Seiler made these statements to Dr. White, the district court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In his appeal, Dr. Schindler first argues that the district court erred in excluding as inadmissible hearsay his testimony that Dr. White told him that "Joe Seiler is downstairs right now and just told me that you paralyzed four patients." Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, FED. R. EVID. 801(c), and, generally, is inadmissible. See FED. R. EVID. 802. Dr. Schindler contends that the district court erred because his testimony is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Dr. Schindler paralyzed four patients, but rather to prove that the defamatory statements were made.

Statements that constitute verbal acts (e.g., words of contract or slander) are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c) Advisory Committee Notes (noting that the Rule 801(c) excludes from the definition of hearsay "`verbal acts' and `verbal parts of an act,' in which the statement itself affects the legal rights of the parties or is a circumstance bearing on conduct affecting their rights."). Similarly, a statement offered to show its effect on the person who heard the statement is not hearsay. See United States v. Robinzine, 80 F.3d 246, 252 (7th Cir.1996) (ruling that words offered to show why a witness recanted her testimony are not hearsay where the words are offered to show how they affected the witness).

Where a plaintiff attempts to introduce the testimony of an individual who did not personally witness the alleged defamatory statement but was later told by another that the statement was made, such testimony is rejected as hearsay. See Haywood v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 323 F.3d 524, 533 (7th Cir.2003); Bularz v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America, 93 F.3d 372, 377-78 (7th Cir.1996). This is precisely what Dr. Schindler is attempting to do through his own testimony.

Seiler testified during his deposition that he had informed Dr. White that he had overhead others making derogatory remarks about Dr. Schindler. Seiler denied, however, that he relayed any specific details of the derogatory statements to Dr. White. Likewise, Dr. White testified that Seiler had not told him that Dr. Schindler had paralyzed four patients or that Dr. Schindler was a bad doctor. Had Dr. White testified to the contrary, that Seiler had said to him that Dr. Schindler was a "bad doctor" who had "paralyzed four patients," Dr. White's testimony would be admissible. Dr. Schindler, however, has failed to present testimony from any individual who personally heard Seiler make the defamatory statements. And Dr. Schindler's own testimony as to what...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • In re Epipen
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • June 23, 2021
    ...... matter asserted, but rather are offered to establish their effect on [the listener] and provide context for his statement"); see also Schindler v. Seiler , 474 F.3d 1008, 1010 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that "a statement offered to show its effect on the person who heard the statement is ......
  • Jackson v. McKay-Davis Funeral Home, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-1037
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 23, 2011
    ...of hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. Hearsay evidence, therefore, does not meet this evidentiary requirement. See SchindlerPage 5v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1012 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, any proposed findings of fact which do not set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence have not been ......
  • Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Dev., 05-1815.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • December 28, 2007
    ...... See Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1011 (7th Cir.2007). . 13. Of course, the fact that Jaber's affidavit was self-serving was not a reason to disregard it. ......
  • Evanston Ins. Co. v. Desert State Life Mgmt.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • January 16, 2020
    ...... it "constituted an act of legal significance between Norris and her attorneys, not a ‘statement’ offered for its truth" (quoting Schindler v. Seiler , 474 F.3d 1008, 1010-11 (7th Cir. 2007) )); 2 McCormick on Evid. § 249 (7th ed.) ("When a suit is brought for breach of a written ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter V Hearsay
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Institute American Bankruptcy Institute's Quick Evidence Handbook
    • Invalid date
    ...F.3d 498, 506 (3d Cir. 2003).[186] See Fed. R. Evid. 801(a).[187] See Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F. 3d at 1109.[188] See Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1010 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Statements that constitute verbal acts (e.g., words of contract or slander) are not hearsay because they are not off......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT