Summary
calling someone a "kook" not subject to defamatory meaning as a matter of law
Summary of this case from Peterson v. HopkinsOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1424.
June 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In May 2000, plaintiff underwent breast augmentation surgery which was performed by the defendant Brett Garber, D.O. Believing that the surgery was botched in various ways, plaintiff is suing Dr. Garber for malpractice, in a state court action scheduled for trial in July 2003. In February 2003, the defendant Philadelphia Magazine published an article about the colorful career of a well-known plastic surgeon, Dr. Sal Calabro, with whom Dr. Garber is affiliated. The article included the following:
"Over the years, Calabro has been named in a handful of lawsuits; some were thrown out of court, and his name was removed from others directed at the work of his associate physicians. Dr. Brett Garber, who handles some of Calabro's breast work now, is involved in two suits from patients at Calabro's center `I'm pissed that I got sued at Sal's, but do I think these are frivolous charges? Yes', he says. `Was Sal involved in either of them? No. When you're a celebrity, you're going to get kooks.'"
Plaintiff thereupon brought suit in this court against the magazine, the author of the article, and Dr. Garber, claiming defamation on the basis of the language quoted above. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In their exceptionally able briefs, defendants argue (1) that the quoted language is incapable of defamatory meaning, and (2) a reasonable reader of the article would not be aware that it was this plaintiff who was being characterized as a "kook." Plaintiff contends that describing someone as a "kook" is equivalent to asserting that the person suffers from a loathsome disease, mental illness; and that the open public records of the state court system show that she is one of the two persons suing Dr. Garber, and thus is indeed the person referred to in the magazine article as a "kook."
To state a valid claim, plaintiff must show that the language in the article is reasonably capable of the defamatory meaning she ascribes to it. Beverly Enters, Inc. v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 1999), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1078 (2000). This is a question of law for the court to decide, and in doing so the court must evaluate the statement in context. Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 261 (3d. Cir. 2001). In my view, the context here plainly eliminates any possibility that Dr. Garber was expressing a clinical diagnosis; he was using a slang term which, although probably intended as pejorative, cannot be viewed as asserting a verifiable fact.
Questionable rhetoric or hyperbole do not constitute defamation, as numerous reported decisions bear out. Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technicians. Inc., 426 Pa.Super. 105, 117-18 (1993) (calling a co-worker "crazy"); Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("paranoia" in its popular, non-clinical sense, is no worse than calling someone "crazy" or "nutty" and is not actionable); Fram v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, 380 F. Supp. 1314 (W.D. Pa. 1974) (the words "paranoid" and "schizophrenic" in their popular sense not defamatory). Indeed, one court has gone so far as to rule nondefamatory a magazine article which referred to a judge as "an emotional wreck," "horse's ass," and "in a world of confusion."
While it is understandable that plaintiff would resent being referred to as a "kook," the article complained of is not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, and is not actionable.
I note also that there is a serious question as to whether the persons being described as "kooks" were those who sued Dr. Calabro, or the (two) persons who sued Dr. Garber, or perhaps only the persons who sued Dr. Calabro without realizing that he was not involved in their treatment. I do agree with plaintiff that, since a reasonable reader might interpret the quotation as referring to the persons who sued Dr. Garber, and since there were only two such persons, a reasonable reader might conclude that it was indeed this plaintiff who was being referred to as a "kook." Even so, however, for the reasons set forth above, this action for defamation must fail.
An Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of June 2003, upon consideration of the defendants' motions to dismiss, and plaintiff's response, IT IS ORDERED:
Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.