Case Title: MAGNUSSON v. NEW YORK TIMES CO. d/b/a KFOR

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97703

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAGNUSSON v. NEW YORK TIMES CO. d/b/a KFOR  MAGNUSSON v. NEW YORK TIMES CO. d/b/a KFOR 2004 OK 53 98 P.3d 1070 Case Number: 97703 Decided: 06/29/2004 As Corrected: September 24, 2004 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAMES E. MAGNUSSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NEW YORK TIMES CO. d/b/a KFOR, and BRAD EDWARDS, Defendants/Appellees. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV Honorable Carolyn Ricks, Trial Judge ¶0 The defendants, New York Times Co. d/b/a KFOR (KFOR) and Brad Edwards (Edwards) (collectively, media), broadcast two consumer news reports concerning the plaintiff/appellant, James E. Magnusson (Magnusson/doctor). Magnusson sued KFOR and Edwards for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress alleging that the broadcasts contained false statements and created untrue impressions of his professional skills. KFOR and Edwards filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the doctor could not demonstrate the broadcasts contained false information or caused him actionable harm and that they were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion. The trial court sustained the motion. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded on grounds that a question of fact existed concerning the defamation claim. We hold that: 1) the broadcasts, both of which were focused on alleged complications arising from plastic surgery and the conditions associated therewith, meet the requirements for the application of the common law privilege of fair comment; and 2) media defendants may utilize the common law privilege of fair comment, affording individuals the opportunity for honest expressions of opinion on matters of legitimate public interest based on true or privileged statements of fact, to defend against a defamation cause filed by a private person. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. Holly Hefton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/ Appellant, Robert D. Nelon, Jon Epstein, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 We granted certiorari to consider two issues: 1) whether two broadcasts aired by the defendants/appellees, New York Times Co. d/b/a KFOR (KFOR) and Brad Edwards (Edwards) (collectively, media) come within the common law fair comment privilege, affording individuals the opportunity for honest expressions of opinion on matters of legitimate public interest based on true or privileged statements of fact; and 2) whether the media may utilize the privilege as a defense to a defamation cause filed by a private person. ¶2 Our holding that the broadcasts are entitled to protection under the common law reflects the majority position and results from: an application of the standards of the privilege; a consideration of the statements' phrasing, content and the medium through which it was presented; the circumstances surrounding its publication and a determination that the broadcasts do not imply the existence of undisclosed facts. The position that the media defendants may utilize the common law privilege is supported by Oklahoma jurisprudence as expressed in: Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, FACTS ¶3 In May of 2000, KFOR and Edwards broadcast two "In Your Corner" consumer news reports concerning Magnusson. Before airing the original story on May 18, 2000, Edwards attempted to interview Magnusson, but was told that the doctor was in surgery and unavailable. Along with a copy of his curriculum vitae, a summary presented to patients and several certificates showing board certification, Magnusson faxed Edwards a document in which he stated that the dissatisfied patients failed to follow his advice and were informed by two lawyers that their claims were without merit. Additionally, he indicated that one patient's allegations were associated with the doctor's attempt to collect a judgment against her. ¶4 The initial story had footage of a woman displaying a hip-to-hip scar resulting from an alleged "botched" tummy tuck and two other women complaining about complications associated with breast implants. The report also contained footage of Edwards in Magnusson's office speaking to an office manager who commented that there were facts the women weren't revealing. She did not elaborate on what those facts might be. Edwards stated that although he did not speak with the doctor, Magnusson sent him a statement in which he placed the blame for complications on the patients. Edwards also indicated that he had uncovered a form in which the doctor had applied for a license renewal declaring that he had no lawsuits pending against him. In checking court records, Edwards discovered lawsuits filed as early as 1996. At the end of the broadcast, another reporter stated that seven women had complained to KFOR about dealing with the doctor and urged any other dissatisfied patients to contact the licensing board. ¶5 Approximately a week later, on May 24, 2000, the second story aired. Although Magnusson alleges that he was not contacted after the first broadcast, the reporter introducing the story indicated that Magnusson continued to refuse to go on air and blamed the complaints on his patients who were informed there could be complications of surgery, but that the dissatisfied patients denied the doctor's allegations. Again, Edwards interviewed two patients on air who were unhappy with the doctor's treatment -- each complaining of their results and unsafe or unsanitary conditions. In addition, both patients said that Magnusson had represented himself as a board certified plastic surgeon but that he did not become certified until sometime after their procedures were performed. Nevertheless, the story also included an interview with a patient who praised Magnusson and his staff saying: "I couldn't have asked for anyone to treat me any better than Dr. Magnusson or his staff". The patient also stated she was "very pleased" with her results. ¶6 On September 19, 2000, Magnusson sued KFOR and Edwards for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress alleging that the broadcasts contained false statements and created untrue impressions of his professional skills. KFOR and Edwards answered on October 10, 2000, asserting that the broadcasts were privileged in whole or in part under both the Oklahoma I. ¶7 CONSIDERING THE MAJORITY POSITION AND APPLYING THE STANDARDS OF THE COMMON LAW FAIR COMMENT PRIVILEGE AND EXAMINING THE STATEMENTS' PHRASING, THEIR CONTENT, THE MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH THEY WERE PRESENTED, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THERE IS NO IMPLICATION OF UNDISCLOSED FACTS, THE BROADCASTS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGE. ¶8 KFOR and Edwards contend that the broadcasts were nothing more than opinionative expressions entitled to full constitutional protection under both the Oklahoma a. The fair comment common law defense. ¶9 Fair comment is a common law defense to a defamation action. ¶10 The common law fair comment privilege extends to fair expressions on matters of public interest. b. Applicability of the defense to the facts presented. ¶11 Under the common law defense of fair comment, a statement is generally privileged when it: 1) deals with a matter of public concern; 2) is based on true or privileged facts; and 3) represents the actual opinion of the speaker, but is not made for the sole purpose of causing harm.14 In making the privilege determination, courts look to the phrasing of the statement, the context in which it appears, the medium through which it is disseminated, the circumstances surrounding its publication, and a consideration of whether the statement implies the existence of undisclosed facts.15 ¶12 First, there is no question that the opinions expressed in the broadcasts involved a matter of public concern. Public health is clearly a matter of public consonance.16 Furthermore, the availability and skills of surgeons constitute matters relating to a community's public health.17 ¶13 Second, Magnusson does not allege that the stories were false in the sense that they did not accurately report the patients' complaints.18 Statements about an individual which cannot be proven "true" or "false", because they are opinions19 or conclusions based on a review of the individual's actions are privileged.20 Furthermore, statements of pure opinion -- based on stated facts or on facts known by the parties or assumed by them to exist -- as a matter of constitutional law, enjoy absolute immunity protected both by the First Amendment and by art. 2, §22 of the Oklahoma Constitution.21 Here, all the patients interviewed by Edwards and included in the KFOR broadcasts were clearly basing their statements about the doctor's professionalism -- both those patients who were upset with their results and the one patient who was very pleased with hers22 -- on their individual experiences and the opinions or conclusions they developed therefrom. ¶14 Third, it is for the court to determine whether a statement is one of fact or opinion.23 The statements here cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the doctor.24 Rather, they are in the nature of nonactionable "judgmental statements", opinionative but not factual in nature.25 Furthermore, where the tone of the broadcast is pointed, exaggerated and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage, listeners are put on notice to expect speculation and personal judgment.26 References to "botched" surgeries and "devastating" scars clearly fall within this category rather than being statements which could reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts. ¶15 Finally, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions -- including the Tenth Circuit applying Oklahoma law27 -- faced with the issue of whether to protect similar broadcasts have determined such exaggerated criticisms to be the type of statements that our society, interested in free and heated debate about matters of social concern, has chosen to protect.28 Finally, the reports were presented as part of the "In Your Corner" series -- clearly identified as investigations into claims by patients in which both negative and positive disclosures were made about Magnusson and to which the doctor was given the opportunity to respond.29 There was nothing about the broadcasts indicating that facts were being withheld. Rather, the majority content of the broadcasts were interviews of the patients and quotations of their expressed opinions about the treatment they received. ¶16 Whether allegedly defamatory language is constitutionally privileged is a question of law subject to de novo review to ensure that there is no forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.30 Applying the standards of the common law fair comment privilege and considering the statements' phrasing, their context, the medium through which they were presented, the circumstances surrounding their publication, and a determination of whether the statements imply the existence of undisclosed facts, we have little difficulty determining that the broadcasts here, both of which were focused on alleged complications arising from plastic surgery and the conditions associated therewith, meet the requirements for application of the common law fair comment privilege. II. ¶17 CONSISTENT WITH THE TEACHINGS OF Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C., Sturgeon v. Retherford Pub., Inc. AND Martin v. Griffin Television, Inc. AND THE MAJORITY POSITION, OKLAHOMA LAW ALLOWS THE UTILIZATION OF THE COMMON LAW DEFENSE OF FAIR COMMENT IN A DEFAMATION CAUSE FILED BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. ¶18 Having determined that the common law privilege of fair comment is applicable to the broadcasts, we must now consider whether the defense may be utilized when the plaintiff is a private individual rather than a public person. KFOR and Edwards assert that the defense is available while Magnusson opposes its applicability. ¶19 There is no precedential pronouncement31 on the precise issue of whether the news media in Oklahoma may raise the fair comment or opinion defense in a suit maintained by a private individual. Nevertheless, in Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶16, 958 P.2d 128 , a case involving the initiative process and political speech in which two lawyers brought actions against a newspaper for defamation relating to articles and editorials discussing an interest group's efforts to change state tort law, the Court held that the publications were protected both by the statutory fair report and the fair comment privilege. In reaching this result, the Court reasoned: ". . . The State can neither impede the exchange of ideas nor make that exchange costly through litigious action. Even the mere threat of unfounded liability would have a 'chilling effect' on the discussion of public issues. No less of a limitation is imposed when, as in this case, the action is taken by a private plaintiff under the aegis of state civil law. Civil actions by private parties will violate the free speech guarantee when the discussion alleged to be defamatory concerns public issues and no unlawful activity occurs. . . ." [Italics in original. Bolded material added as emphasis.] Furthermore, two opinions promulgated by the Court of Civil Appeals assume the media may utilize the defense. ¶20 In Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C., 2002 OK CIV APP 115, ¶17, 60 P.3d 1088, cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1013, 123 S. Ct. 1931, 155 L. Ed. 2d 850 (2003), the appellate court refused to allow the media defendants to utilize opinion as a bar to a defamation action. It did so on the basis that the facts at issue -- whether horses had been doped and the plaintiff's relationship to the administration of the drug -- could be proven true or false. Therefore, it affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the defamed veterinarian. Nevertheless, the opinion appears to recognize the defense relying on the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 , 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2707, 111 L.Ed2d 1 (1990). Milkovich provides "where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz".32 ¶21 Considering this Court's opinion in Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, supra, the Court of Civil Appeals assumed in Sturgeon v. Retherford Pub., Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 78, ¶18, 987 P.2d 1218 , that the defense of fair comment would apply in a defamation suit brought by a private individual.33 The appellate court refused to affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss the cause -- not on grounds that the media were not entitled to raise the fair comment defense -- but because the trial court did not consider all the statements alleged by the plaintiff to be defamatory. ¶22 In Martin v. Griffin Television, Inc., 1976 OK 13, ¶23, 549 P.2d 85 , we refused to adopt the New York Times standard of actual malice34 in an action brought by a private individual against the news media. Instead, this Court determined that a reasonable balance between the right of the news media and the right of a private individual as against libel or slander was best achieved by a negligence test. In reaching this result, we did not base our decision on whether the matter involved an issue of fair comment on a matter of public or general interest but looked instead to the position of the injured individual. Martin did not expressly deprive the media of the defense of fair comment in an action brought by a private individual. ¶23 Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶16, 958 P.2d 128 ; Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C., 2002 OK CIV APP 115, ¶17, 60 P.3d 1088, cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1013, 123 S. Ct. 1931, 155 L. Ed. 2d 850 (2003); Sturgeon v. Retherford Pub., Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 78, ¶18, 987 P.2d 1218 ; and Martin v. Griffin Television, Inc., 1976 OK 13, ¶23, 549 P.2d 85 do not directly address the precise issue of whether the common law defense of fair comment will be utilized in a defamation cause of action. Nevertheless, the positions taken in those causes coincide with the majority position that the defense may be utilized in a defamation cause brought by a private individual.35 Therefore, in a proper case, we determine that Oklahoman law supports the utilization of the common law defense of fair comment in a defamation cause filed by a private individual. CONCLUSION ¶24 Freedom of the press does not impart an absolute right to publish without responsibility whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license affording immunity for every possible use of language.36 Nevertheless, courts must be slow to intrude into areas of editorial judgment.37 Whether a statement is intended as one of opinion or fact can never be ascertained with certainty to the satisfaction of a questioning public.38 However, a statement of opinion which does not contain a provably false factual connotation, receives full constitutional protection.39 Presented here are the tensions between two important societal values -- the constitutional freedoms of speech and press versus the important reputational interests of private individuals.40 Nevertheless, it is not the judiciary's duty to "correct" the opinions expressed by the patients here or to punish the media for communicating their statements. Rather, we are mindful that an opinion we endeavor to stifle may or may not be a false one -- and even if we were certain the stifling itself would be problematic.41 ¶25 The creators of our constitutional system were aware that privileges such as those discussed here carry with them the potential for abuse, but they assumed that risk should be borne by society as a cost of an informed citizenry. Nevertheless, one could but hope that reportorial standards of care in the profession would reflect a high degree of competence despite the broad protections afforded the profession. ¶26 The Oklahoma Constitution COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED. TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT