Epstein Becker Green attorneys obtained a jury verdict on November 19, 2008, dismissing a defamation action brought by a former executive against one of New York City’s largest hospitals. The action was in federal court in Central Islip, New York.
The plaintiff had been the hospital’s Executive Vice President for finance, billing and collections, information technology and strategic planning. He had left the hospital’s employ in 2000. Thereafter, the New York Attorney General (“AG”) investigated billing for Medicaid patients for services rendered at part-time clinics operated by the hospital and alleged that the hospital fraudulently overbilled the State. The overbilling allegations were settled for more than $75 million in 2005.
As part of the settlement, the AG filed a civil complaint alleging that the hospital had engaged in Medicaid fraud and that certain named individuals, including the plaintiff, were principals in perpetrating the fraud. In addition, the AG required that the hospital provide the AG with a written apology for “misconduct” of unnamed “former executives.” The AG announced the settlement in a press release on his office’s Web Site, which quoted the apology and linked to the complaint—which, unlike the apology, identified plaintiff by name.
The next day, the AG’s press release was reported in the press and plaintiff’s name was mentioned in connection with the apology. The plaintiff’s then-current employer, another hospital, fired him on the spot, stating publicly that he was fired because of the AG’s allegations.
Epstein Becker Green’s client was then sued for defamation as a result of the AG’s public dissemination of its apology. We defended on the ground that the re-publication of the alleged defamation by the AG did not constitute publication by the hospital. Plaintiff argued that because some of the language of the apology had been drafted by the hospital during negotiations, the publication should be considered at least a joint publication. The jury decided, however, that the hospital’s involvement in the drafting process did not constitute a publication by the hospital, and as a result, the plaintiff did not prove a viable defamation claim.