# IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

## N O



## . 14-0456

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



# K B M T O P E R A T IN G 

# C O M P A N Y 

# , L L C
, K B M T L IC E N S E 

# C O M P A N Y 

# , L L C
, B R IA N 

# B U R N S 

# , J A C K IE 

# S IM IE N A N D 

# T R A C Y 

# K E N N IC K 

# , P E T IT IO N E R S 

# ,

v

.



# M IN D A 

# L A O 

# T O L E D O 

# , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## O N 

## P E T I T I O N F O R 

## R E V I E W F R O M T H E 

## C O U R T O F 

## A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

## N I N T H 

## D I S T R I C T O F 

## T E X A S



### 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## Argued Novem ber 13, 2015

C H I E F 

## J U S T I C E 

## H E C H T 

## delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which J U S T I C E 

## G R E E N 

## , J U S T I C E 

## G U Z M A N 

## , J U S T I C E 

## L E H R M A N N 

## , J U S T I C E 

## D E V I N E 

## , and J U S T I C E 

## B R O W N 

## joined.

J U S T I C E 

## B O Y D 

## filed a dissenting opinion, in which J U S T I C E 

## J O H N S O N 

## and J U S T I C E 

## W I L L E T T 

## joined.

The First Amendment require s that a private individual who sues a media defe ndant for

defa mation over stateme nts of public conce rn bea r the burde n of proving that the s tatements were

false—tha t is, that the g ist of the statements was not substantially true. We hold that the truth of a 1



## media repor

t of officia l proce eding s of public conce rn must be measure d ag ains t t h e p ro ceeding s

themselves, not ag ainst information o u t s ide the proce eding s. The media may repor t on the

M a s s o n v

. N e w Y

o r k e r M a g a z i n e , I

n c

. , 5 0 1 U

. S

. 4 9 6
, 5 1 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; P h i l a

. N e w s p a p e r s , I n c

. v

. H e p p s , 4 7 5 U

. S

. 1
7 6 7
, 7 7 6

– 7 7 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; N e e l y v

. W i l s o n , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2
, 6 2

– 6 3 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 3 )

.

## proce eding s themselves without independe ntly inv est iga ting the matters involved. Be cause we

conclude that the plaintiff in this case did not meet her burden under the Texas Citi zens Participation

Act of establishing by clea r an d s p ec i fi c evidenc e a prima fac ie case that the media defe ndants’ 2



## broadc ast was false, an essential element of her defa mation claim, we hold that the defe ndants wer e

entitled to dismiss al. Acc ording ly
, we reve rse the judgme nt of the court of appea ls and rema nd the 3 4



## case to the trial court f

or fur ther proc eeding s.

The Texas Medi ca l Bo ar d (“the Boa rd”) disciplined Minda L ao Toledo, a Port Arthur

phy sician, for “unprof

essional conduct”

. The Boa rd issued a two-sentenc e press rele ase stating that

Toledo “behave d unprofe ssionally when she eng ag ed in sexual contac t with a patient and beca me

financ ially or persona lly involved with a patient in an inappropria te m an n er

. ” T h e press rele ase

further stated that Toledo had enter ed into an ag ree d order requiring her to complete ethics training
,

pass a pr ofessionalism course , and pay $3,000 as an a dminist rative pe nalty

. 5

T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § § 2 7

. 0 0 1

– . 0 1 1 ; A c t o f M a y 2 1
, 2 0 1 1
, 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , c h

. 3 4 1
, § 1
, 2 0 1 1 T e x

. 2
G e n

. L a w s 9 6 1
, 9 6 1 [ H B 2 9 7 3 ]

.

I d

. § 2 7

. 0 0 5

. 3

4 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 6 ( T e x

. A p p

. — B e a u m o n t 2 0 1 4 )

. 4

T h e p r e s s r e l e a s e s t a t e d i n f u l l : 5

T o l e d o , M i n d a L a o , M

. D

. , L i c
. N o
. M 2 4 8 7 , P o r t A r t h u r O n A u g u s t 3 1
, 2 0 1 2
, t h e B o a r d a n d M i n d a L a o T o l e d o , M

. D

. , e n t e r e d i n t o a n A g r e e d O r d e r r e q u i r i n g D r

. T o l e d o t o c o m p l e t e 1 6 h o u r s o f C M E i n c l u d i n g e i g h t h o u r s i n e t h i c s a n d e i g h t h o u r s i n r i s k

m a n a g e m e n t , p a s s w i t h i n o n e y e a r a n d w i t h i n t h r e e a t t e m p t s t h e M e d i c a l J u r i s p r u d e n c e E x a m ,
c o m p l e t e t h e p r o f

e s s i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s c o u r s e o f f e r e d b y t h e V a n d e r b i l t M e d i c a l C e n t e r f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l
H e a l t h o r a s i m i l a r c o u r s e o f f e r e d b y t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a S a n D i e g o P h y s i c i a n A s s e s s m e n t

a n d C l i n i c a l E d u c a t i o n ( P A C E ) p r o g r a m , a n d p a y a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e n a l t y o f $ 3
, 0 0 0 w i t h i n 9 0 d a y s

. T h e B o a r d f

o u n d D r

. T o l e d o b e h a v e d u n p r o f e s s i o n a l l y w h e n s h e e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h a p a t i e n t a n d b e c a m e f

i n a n c i a l l y o r p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d w i t h a p a t i e n t i n a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e m a n n e r

.



### 2

## Toledo’s prof ile on the B oard website included the text of the press rele ase, stated that she

was born in the Phili ppines and had been prac ticing in Texas for five y ear s, and g ave a Port Arthur

addre ss. The profile contained a link to the order to which Toledo, repr esente d by leg al counsel, had

ag ree d. The order stated t h at T oledo was 51 y ear s old and “primar ily eng ag ed in the prac tice of

pediatric medicine.” The order further stated that she “used her medical license to obtain testosterone

and human g rowth hormone for J C while she was in an intimate rela tionship with him and that she

“ac cepte d g ifts from J C during the time she was trea ting him.” The order conclude d that the Boa rd

was authorized to discipline Toledo for “unprof essional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to

dece ive or defr aud the public or injure the public”, “eng ag ing in sexual contac t with a p at i en t ”,

“bec oming financ ially or persona lly involved with a patient in an inappropria te manner ”,

“pre scribing or administering a drug or trea tment that is nonthera peutic in nature or nonthera peutic

in the manner

the drug or trea

tment is administ ere d or pre scribed” , and the “ commission of an ac t

that violates . . . state or f eder al law . . . c onnecte d with the phy sician’s pra ctice of medicine”

.

KB MT, an AB C-aff

iliated television station in Be aumont, part of the same metropolitan are a

as Port Arthur, learne d of t he press rele ase and found i t, Toledo’s profile, and the a g ree d order on

the B oard’ s website. KB MT then aire d this 30-second re port of the B oard’ s action:

A Port Arthur pediatric ian has been punished by the Texas Me dical Boa rd afte r the Boa rd found she eng ag ed in sexual contac t with a patient and beca me financ ially involved with a patient in an inappropria te manner

. Dr. Minda L ao Toledo will have
to complete six teen hours of continuing medical education, including eig ht hours of ethics and eig ht hours of risk manag ement, and pay an administrative penalty of three thousand dollars. To l ed o is a native of the Phili ppines and has been prac ticing medicine in Te x as for

five y ear s.

3

## KB MT ran the repor t four times in 24 hours, but the last time the news anchor added that Toledo’s

patient was “ an adult”.

Toledo sued KB MT an d t h ree of its employ ees (collec tively
, “KB MT”) for defa mation,

alleg ing that by stating she was a pediatric ian, and by omitti ng that she was trea ting the patient with

whom she had ha d sexual contac t with testosterone, the re port false ly implied that the patient was

a child when, i n fac t, he was a 60-y ear -old man with whom she had been in a long- term dating

rela tionship. The patient’s ag e did n ot appea r in any of the information on the Boa rd’s website.

KB MT moved for dismiss al under the Texas Citi zens Participation Act (“the Act”)
, which allows 6



## for the ear ly dism i s s al o f a leg al action implicating the defe ndant’s fre e-spe ech rig hts unless the

plaintiff can establish eac h element of her claim with clea r and specific evidenc e. The trial court 7



## denied KB MT’s motion and the court of appea ls aff irmed, concluding that Toledo had established

a prima fac ie case of defa mation. The court conclude d that Toledo had shown the requisite falsity

8



## beca use the g ist of the broadc ast was that she had had se x ual contac t with a child. 9



## We gr anted KB MT’s petition for re view. 1 0

T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § § 2 7

. 0 0 1

– . 0 1 1

. T h e A c t i s s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o a s a n a n t i

- S L A P P l a w

— t h e 6

a c r o n y m s t a n d i n g f

o r s t r a t e g i c l a w s u i t a g a i n s t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n

.

I d

. § 2 7

. 0 0 3 ( a ) ( “ I f

a l e g a l a c t i o n i s b a s e d o n , r e l a t e s t o , o r i s i n r e s p o n s e t o a p a r t y ’ s e x e r c i s e o f t h e r i g h t o f 7
f r e e s p e e c h
, r i g h t t o p e t i t i o n , o r r i g h t o f a s s o c i a t i o n , t h a t p a r t y m a y f i l e a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e l e g a l a c t i o n

. ” ) ; i d

. § 2 7

. 0 0 5 ( c ) ( “ T h e c o u r t m a y n o t d i s m i s s a l e g a l a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n i f t h e p a r t y b r i n g i n g t h e l e g a l a c t i o n e s t a b l i s h e s b y c l e a r a n d s p e c i f

i c e v i d e n c e a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e f

o r e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m i n q u e s t i o n

. ” )

.

4 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 6
, 2 9 0 ( T e x

. A p p

. — B e a u m o n t 2 0 1 4 )

. 8

I d

. a t 2 8 9

. 9

5 8 T e x

. S u p

. C t

. J

. 4 7 7 ( M a r

. 1 3
, 2 0 1 5 )

. A n a p p e a l t o t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r d e n y i n g a m o t i o n 10

t o d i s m i s s u n d e r t h e A c t i s p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e

. T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § 5 1

. 0 1 4 ( a ) ( 1 2 )

. A l t h o u g h t h e s t a t u t e

w a s e n a c t e d a f

t e r t h i s s u i t w a s f

i l e d
, s e e A c t o f M a y 2 4
, 2 0 1 3
, 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , c h

. 1 0 4 2
, § 4
, 2 0 1 3 T e x

. G e n

. L a w s 2 4 9 9
,



### 4

## The Act provides that a suit base d on a def endant’ s exercise of his fre e speech rights m ust

be dismiss ed unless the plaintiff “esta blishes by clea

r and specific evidenc e a prima fac ie case for 1 1



## eac h essential element of the claim in question.” Toledo’s defa mation suit ag ainst KB MT is based 1 2



## on its exercise of its ri gh t o f fr ee speec h, as Toledo acknow ledg es. Thus, KB MT was entitled to

dismiss al unless Toledo established a prima fa ci e ca se for eac h element of a defa mation cause of

action. KB MT arg ues that one element of Toledo’s action is that its repor t was false, and that Toledo

has not made a

prima fa cie c ase of

falsity

.

At common law, truth was a defe nse in a suit for defa mation; f alsity was not a

n element of

the ac tion. But as we rece ntly observe d, “[t] he United St ates Supreme Court and this Court long

1 3



## ag o shifted the burde n of proving the truth defe nse to r equire the plaintiff to prove the def amatory

statements wer e false when the statements wer e made by a media defe ndant over a public conce rn.” 1 4



## We ref er red specific ally to the United States Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Philadelphia

2 5 0 0 [ H B 2 9 3 5 ]
, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a t u t e s a p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y , s e e U n i v

. o f T e x

. S w

. M e d

. C t r

. a t D a l l a s v

. E s t a t e o f A r a n c i b i a , 3 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 4
, 5 4 7

– 5 4 8 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 0 )

. A n i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t i s a l l o w e d w h e n “ o n e o f t h e

c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h o l d s d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m a p r i o r d e c i s i o n o f a n o t h e r c o u r t o f a p p e a l s o r o f t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t ”
, T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E § 2 2

. 2 2 5 ( b ) ( 3 )
, ( c )
, ( e )

— t h a t i s , “ w h e n t h e r e i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s t h a t s h o u l d b e c l a r i f i e d

t o r e m o v e u n n e c e s s a r y u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e l a w a n d u n f a i r n e s s t o l i t i g a n t s ”
, i d

. § 2 2

. 0 0 1 ( e )

. A s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , t h e c o u r t

o f a p p e a l s ’ h o l d i n g o n t h e s u b s t a n t i a l t r u t h d o c t r i n e c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h i s C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g s i n N e e l y v

. W i l s o n , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d
5 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 3 )
, a n d M c I l v a i n v

. J

a c o b s , 7 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 0 )

.

T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § 2 7

. 0 0 5 ( b )

. 11

I d

. § 2 7

. 0 0 5 ( c )

. 12

N e e l y , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 2

. 13

I d

. 14



### 5

## Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps and our 1990 decision in McI lvain v. Jacobs

. A statement need not be 1 5 1 6



## perf ectly true; as long as it i s s u b s t an t i al l y true, it is not false. The test for whether a repor t like 1 7



## KB MT’s i s substantially true is whether the “broadca st taken as a whole i s m o re d am ag ing to the

plaintiff’s reputa tion than a truthful broadc ast wo u l d h ave been”

. This require s deter mining the 1 8



## import of the broadc ast as a whole—its g ist to the ordinary listener—and compar ing it to a truthful

repor t. 1 9



## But a truthful repor

t of what? An acc urate repor t of officia l proce eding s that do not

themselves prese nt a true picture of the actua l fac ts will nece ssarily share the same defe ct. The media

have a common-law privileg e to repor t on judicial proce eding s without reg ard for whether the

information from such proce eding s is actua lly true. I n 1901, the L eg islature codified this privileg e 2 0



## and extended it to “a fair, true, and impartial acc ount” of not only judicial proce eding s but all officia l

proce edin g s. Requiring the media to independe ntly investiga te the fac ts befor e repor ting on officia l 2 1



## p r o c e e d in g s w o u ld il l serve the public’s interest in g overnme nt activities. When the privileg e applie s ,

4 7 5 U

. S

. 7 6 7
, 7 7 7 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. 15

7 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d a t 1 4
, 1 5

. 16

N e e l y , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 3

– 6 4

. 17

I d

. a t 6 3 ( c i t i n g T

u r n e r v

. K T

R K T e l e v i s i o n , I

n c

. , 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 3
, 1 1 5 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 0 )
, M c I l v a i n , 7 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 18

a t 1 6
, a n d M a s s o n v

. N e w Y o r k e r M a g a z i n e , I

n c

. , 5 0 1 U

. S

. 4 9 6
, 5 1 6

– 5 1 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) )

.

N e e l y , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 3

. 19

I d

. a t 6 8

. 20

A c t o f M a r c h 2 6
, 1 9 0 1
, 2 7 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , c h

. 2 6
, § 3
, 1 9 0 1 T e x

. G e n

. L a w s 3 0
, 3 0 [ S B 2 5 ] ( c u r r e n t v e r s i o n 21

a t T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § 7 3

. 0 0 2 )

. T h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o a “ p u b l i c a t i o n b y a n e w s p a p e r o r o t h e r p e r i o d i c a l ”
, t h e o n l y m e d i a i n e x i s t e n c e i n 1 9 0 1
, b u t d o e s n o t e x c l u d e o t h e r m e d i a p u b l i c a t i o n s

. T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § 7 3

. 0 0 2 ( a )

. I n N e e l

y , w e a p p l i e d t h e p r i v i l e g e t o a t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t

. N e e l y , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 9

.



### 6

## the gist of an al l ege dly defa matory broadc ast must be compared to a truthful repor t of t he official

proce eding s, not to the actual fa cts. 2 2



## Although the statute does not alloca te the burde n of proof f or establishing the privileg e, in

1970 we held in Denton Publishing Co. v. Boyd that the privileg e is an aff irmative defe nse on which

the defe ndant has the burden of proof. Since then, as we have explained, the United States Supreme 2 3



## Court in Hepps and this Court in McI lvain have held that the First Amendment require s that a private

fig ure suing a media defenda nt over stateme nts on matters of public conc ern pr ove the state ments

are false. This rule, as Hepps explained, is “[t] o ensure that true speec h on matters of public conce rn

is not deter

red”

. Those decisions have partially abrog ated our holding in Denton Publishing

. Whil e 2 4



## the defe ndant must still prove the applicability of the p ri v i l eg e—that the defe ndant is part of the

media and that the statements complained of wer e an ac co u n t of officia l proce eding s of public

conce rn—the plaintiff must prove the statements we re f alse.

Thus, we hold that a privat e individual who s ues a media defenda nt for defama tion over a

repor t on officia l proce eding s of public conce rn has the burden of proving that the g ist of the repor t

was not substantially true—that is, tha t the repor t w as not a

fair, tr ue, and impar

tial acc ount of the

I d

. a t 6 8 ( “ T h e o f

f i c i a l / j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s p r i v i l e g e a s s e s s e s w h e t h e r t h e r e p o r t e r ’ s a c c o u n t o f t h e 2 2

p r o c e e d i n g s ( n o t t h e u n d e r l y i n g a l l e g a t i o n s m a d e i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s ) w a s f a i r , t r u e , a n d i m p a r t i a l

. ” ( c i t i n g D e n t o n P u b l ’ g C o

. v

. B o y d
, 4 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 8 1
, 8 8 3 ( T e x

. 1 9 7 1 ) ) )

.

4 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d a t 8 8 4

. 23

P h i l a

. N e w s

p a p e r s , I n c

. v

. H e p p s , 4 7 5 U

. S

. 7 6 7
, 7 7 6

– 7 7 7 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. 24



### 7

## proce eding s. That burden is not met with proof that the re port was not a substantially true acc ount

of the a ctual fa cts outside the proc eeding s. 2 5



## Toledo arg ues that t he g ist of KB MT’s broadc ast to the ordinary listener was that she had

sexual contac t with a child beca use it identified her as a pediatric ian at the outset and stated that she

had been punished for having sexual contac t wi t h a patient without stating the patient’s ag e. We

disag ree

. Any ordinary listener would know that improper sexual contac t with a child by an adult old

enoug h to be a phy sician would be a crime prosec uted by the distri ct att orney , not by the Texas

Medica l Boa

rd. No ordinary listener could rea sonably have thought that such a crime would be

punished with a slap on the wrist—a few hours of continuing education and a small fine. Nor could

an ordinary listener rea sonably have thought that a pediatric ian would be financ ially involved with

a minor. The stated s ubject of the repor t was profe ssional discipline of a local doctor, and the

ordinary listener could not rea sonably have understood the repor t to have been about criminal sexual

abuse of a child. Any ordinary listener would have known that a network television broadc ast about

a phy sician’s criminal sexual abuse of a child would have said so in no uncer tain terms and not left

the listener to wonde r.

Toledo arg

ues that the broadc ast should not have mentioned she was a pediatric ian when the

press rele ase did not. But that fac t was included in the order to which s h e agr ee d
, which was

available on the Boa

rd’s website, and wh i ch d i d n o t give the ag e of the patient at issue. Toledo

T h e d i s s e n t “ n e i t h e r a g r e e [ s ] n o r d i s a g r e e [ s ] ” w i t h t h i s h o l d i n g , p o s t a t

_ _ _ , a n d c o m p l a i n s t h a t w e h a v e 25

a n a l y z e d t h e i s s u e “ t o o b r u s q u e l y ”
, p o s t a t

_ _ _ , a n d h a v e n o t a d e q u a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d v a r i o u s “ c o m p l e x i t i e s ”
, p o s t a t

_ _ _ . B u t i f t h e d i s s e n t d i s a g r e e d w i t h o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , s u r e l y i t w o u l d s a y s o a n d n o t s i m p l y t e a s e

. T h e d i s s e n t

c o n s i d e r s o u r h o l d i n g “ i r r e l e v a n t ”
, p o s t a t

_ _ _ , b u t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t “ T o l e d o b o r e t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h a t t h e b r o a d c a s t s ’
g i s t w a s m o r e d a m a g i n g t o h e r r e p u t a t i o n t h a n a t r u t h f u l b r o a d c a s t w o u l d h a v e b e e n ”
, p o s t a t

_ _ _ .



### 8

## arg ues that KBM T ’s omission of the fac t that she had presc ribed testosterone and human g rowth

hormone made the repor

t mi s l ea d i n g. Bu t this assumes that an ordinary listener would think that

such drug s are g iven only to adults when in fac t they can also be g iven to children. Toledo contends 2 6



## t h at the evidenc e shows that ordinary listeners wer e misled. But that evidenc e was her aff idavi t

which, besides being self-se rving
, was conclusory hear say

. J ust last y ear we held that such “[b] are ,

basele ss opinions do not cre ate fac t questions, and neither are they a sufficie nt substitut e for the clea r

and specific evidenc e require d to establish a prima fac ie case under the [Act] .” She stopped short 2 7



## of identify ing any ordinary listener who understood from the broadc ast that she h ad en gage d in a

sexual rela tionship with a pediatric patient, stating only that it was “appa rent” to her that her patients

wer e “conc erne d”. Finally
, Toledo arg ues that by chang ing the last of its four broadc asts to clar ify 2 8



## that the patient ref

err ed to was an adult, KB MT itself acknow ledg ed that the fair import of its repor t

was to the contra

ry

. But that chang e, appar ently to make the repor t clea rer, does not sug g est that

ear lier broa dcasts we re misleading

.

S e e A n d r e w C a l a b r i a , M a l e H y p o g o n a d i s m i n C h i l d r e n , M E R C K M A N U A L S ( O c t

. 2 0 1 4 )
, h t t p : / / w w w

. - 26

m e r c k m a n u a l s

. c o m / p r o f e s s i o n a l / p e d i a t r i c s / e n d o c r i n e

- d i s o r d e r s

- i n

- c h i l d r e n / m a l e

- h y p o g o n a d i s m

- i n

- c h i l d r e n ( l a s t v i s i t e d
J u n e 1 6
, 2 0 1 6
, c o p y i n c a s e f i l e ) ; A n d r e w C a l a b r i a , G r o w t h H o r m o n e D e f i c i e n c y i n C h i l d r e n , M E R C K M A N U A L S ( O c t

. 2 0 1 4 )
, h t t p : / / w w w

. m e r c k m a n u a l s

. c o m / p r o f e s s i o n a l / p e d i a t r i c s / e n d o c r i n e

- d i s o r d e r s

- i n

- c h i l d r e n /

- g r o w t h

- h o r m o n e

- d e f

i c i e n c y

- i n

- c h i l d r e n ( l a s t v i s i t e d J u n e 1 6
, 2 0 1 6
, c o p y i n c a s e f i l e )

.

I n r e L i p s k y , 4 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 9
, 5 9 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 5 )

. 27

T o l e d o ’ s a f

f i d a v i t s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : “ [ M ] y s t a f f a n d I b e g a n r e c e i v i n g b o t h p e r s o n a l a n d t e l e p h o n i c 28
i n q u i r i e s

. . . . I t w a s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e c o n t e n t o f

t h e i n q u i r i e s t h a t m y p a t i e n t s w e r e c o n c e r n e d t h a t I h a d b e e n e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h p e d i a t r i c p a t i e n t s

. . . . I w a s p e r s o n a l l y s t u n n e d b y t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e s e i n q u i r i e s a n d h o r r i f i e d a t
t h e p u b l i c r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e n e w s b r o a d c a s t s

. . . . I a l s o l e a r n e d t h a t p a t i e n t s h a d c o n t a c t e d o t h e r p h y s i c i a n s , r e f e r r a l
p h y s i c i a n s a n d c o l l e a g u e s w h o k n e w m e t o i n q u i r e a b o u t t h e s e o u t r a g e o u s l y f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

. . . . B a s e d u p o n t h e q u e s t i o n i n g I r e c e i v e d f r o m m y p e e r s , I a m s u r e t h a t m y r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e m e d i c a l c o m m u n i t y h a s s u f f e r e d a s a r e s u l t o f

t h e r u m o r s r e s u l t i n g f

r o m t h e s e b r o a d c a s t s

. . . . ”



### 9

## Most importantly
, if there could have been any confusion over the b ro ad ca s t , the same

possibili ty of confusion exis ted in the Boa rd’s repor t of its proce eding s. We have reje cted Toledo’s

arg ument that the broadc ast must be compar ed to the actua l fac ts. I t must instead be compar ed to the

Boa rd proc eeding s. The broa dcast c ast her in no wor se lig ht than the proc eeding s themselves. 2 9



## This case is unlike N

ee l y v. W ilson

. There
, a surg eon complained of a seven- minute 3 0



## televised investig ative re port sug g esting that he had been disciplined by the Texas Medica l Boa

rd

T h e d i s s e n t r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t s t h a t a b r o a d c a s t o f o f f i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t c a n n o t a s a m a t t e r 29

o f l a w b e s u b s t a n t i a l l y t r u e i f t h e r e i s a n y p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r c o u l d ( t h e d i s s e n t u s e s t h e w o r d o v e r 3 0

t i m e s ) h a v e m i s u n d e r s t o o d i t t o c o n v e y a f a l s e h o o d

. T h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t o f s u c h a r u l e w o u l d
, o f c o u r s e , b e t o c h i l l m e d i a

r e p o r t i n g o f m a t t e r s n o t o n l y o f c o n c e r n t o t h e p u b l i c b u t c r i t i c a l t o t h e p u b l i c ’ s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
, a n d c o n f

i d e n c e i n , t h e

w o r k i n g o f t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t

. I n a n y e v e n t , t h e d i s s e n t h a s m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e l a w

. W h i l e w e h a v e s o m e t i m e s s a i d t h a t

s u b s t a n t i a l t r u t h d e p e n d s o n w h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r c o u l d t a k e f r o m a r e p o r t , w e h a v e j u s t a s o f t e n s t a t e d t h e t e s t a s

w h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r w o u l d t a k e

. S e e N e e l y , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 4 ( “ W e d e t e r m i n e a b r o a d c a s t ’ s g i s t o r m e a n i n g b y

e x a m i n i n g h o w a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e w o u l d v i e w i t

. ” ) ; T u r n e r v

. K T

R K T e l e v i s i o n , I

n c

. , 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 3
, 1 1 4 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ W e h a v e l o n g h e l d t h a t a n a l l e g e d l y d e f a m a t o r y p u b l i c a t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d a s a w h o l e i n l i g h t o f t h e

s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s b a s e d u p o n h o w a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e w o u l d p e r c e i v e i t

. ” ) ; M c I l v a i n v

. J a c o b s , 7 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4
, 1 6 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ T h e t e s t u s e d i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e b r o a d c a s t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t r u e i n v o l v e s

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t w a s m o r e d a m a g i n g t o J a c o b s ’ r e p u t a t i o n , i n t h e m i n d o f t h e

a v e r a g e l i s t e n e r , t h a n a t r u t h f u l s t a t e m e n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n

. ” ) ; M u s s e r v

. S m i t h P r o t e c t i v e S e r v s

. , I n c

. , 7 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 3
, 6 5 5 ( T e x

. 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ T h e c o u r t c o n s t r u e s t h e s t a t e m e n t a s a w h o l e i n l i g h t o f s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s b a s e d u p o n h o w

a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e w o u l d p e r c e i v e t h e e n t i r e s t a t e m e n t

. ” ) ; G u i s t i v

. G a l v e s t o n T r i b u n e , 1 5 0 S

. W

. 8 7 4
, 8 7 8 ( T e x

. 1 9 1 2 ) ( “ ‘ T h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t w h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e w i t n e s s e s i n t h e c a s e m a y p u t u p o n t h e s t a t e m e n t , b u t w h a t i s i t s r e a s o n a b l e a n d n a t u r a l m e a n i n g i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h i t w a s m a d e a s a l l e g e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n

. ’

. . . ‘ T h e q u e s t i o n i s , w h a t e f f e c t w o u l d t h e p u b l i c a t i o n h a v e u p o n t h e m i n d o f t h e o r d i n a r y r e a d e r ? ’ ” )

. T h e d i s s e n t a t t e m p t s t o a r g u e t h a t T u r n e r a n d N

e e l y u s e d “ c o u l d ” w h e n r e f e r r i n g t o a n o

- e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d o f a p p e l l a t e

r e v i e w w h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a p l a i n t i f f m u s t u l t i m a t e l y p r o v e w h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r “ w o u l d ” h a v e u n d e r s t o o d f r o m t h e b r o a d c a s t

. T h o s e c a s e s d i d n o s u c h t h i n g

. T h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c a u s e

o f a c t i o n

. T h e d i s s e n t a p p e a r s t o a g r e e t h a t a n e l e m e n t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s p r o o f t h a t w h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r w o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d i s f a l s e

. T h e A c t r e q u i r e s t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t e l e m e n t b y c l e a r a n d s p e c i f i c

e v i d e n c e o r s u f

f e r d i s m i s s a l

. E v i d e n c e o f w h a t a n o r d i n a r y l i s t e n e r c o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d i s n o t e v i d e n c e o f w h a t t h e l i s t e n e r w o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d

. T h e t e s t f o r s u b s t a n t i a l t r u t h a n d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n m u s t b e g u i d e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t “ s i n c e

‘

. . . e r r o n e o u s s t a t e m e n t i s i n e v i t a b l e i n f r e e d e b a t e , a n d

. . . i t m u s t b e p r o t e c t e d i f t h e f r e e d o m s o f e x p r e s s i o n a r e t o h a v e t h e “ b r e a t h i n g s p a c e ” t h a t t h e y “ n e e d

. . . t o s u r v i v e ”

. . . , ’ o n l y t h o s e f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e w i t h t h e h i g h d e g r e e

o f a w a r e n e s s o f t h e i r p r o b a b l e f a l s i t y d e m a n d e d b y N e w Y o r k T i m e s m a y b e t h e s u b j e c t o f e i t h e r c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l

s a n c t i o n s

. F o r s p e e c h c o n c e r n i n g p u b l i c a f f a i r s i s m o r e t h a n s e l f

- e x p r e s s i o n ; i t i s t h e e s s e n c e o f s e l f

- g o v e r n m e n t

. ” G a r r i s o n v

. L o u i s i a n a , 3 7 9 U

. S

. 6 4
, 7 4

– 7 5 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ( q u o t i n g N e w Y o r k T i m e s v

. S u l l i v a n , 3 7 6 U

. S

. 2 5 4
, 2 7 1

– 2 7 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) )

.

4 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 1 3 )

. 30



### 1 0

## for taking drug s and being under their influence while opera ting. I n fac t, the Boa rd had disciplined 3 1



## him only for self-pr escr ibing drug s. The wide-r ang ing broadc ast was not c onfined to the Boa rd’s 3 2



## o r d e r a n d information from its proce eding s. By contra st, KB MT’s broadc ast was a simple
, a c c u r a te , 3 3



## fair, a nd brief r estateme nt of the B oard’ s press re lease and the or der to whic h Toledo had a g ree d.

Our decision in McI

lvain v. Jacobs is controlling

. There
, a television station repor ted that 3 4



## city employ ees wer e being investiga ted for doing private work on city time. The employ ees sued 3 5



## for de fama tion, alleg ing that the repor t w as false beca

use the cha

rg es we re f

alse. But the truth of 3 6



## the repor t, we held, was to be measure d by the scope of the investiga tion, not by whet h er the

misconduct being investiga ted could ultimately be prove d. 3 7

I d

. a t 5 6

– 5 9

. 31

I d

. a t 6 6

. 32

I d

. ( “ A r e a s o n a b l e v i e w o f t h e g i s t o f t h e b r o a d c a s t i s t h a t N e e l y w a s d i s c i p l i n e d f o r o p e r a t i n g o n p a t i e n t s 33

w h i l e u s i n g d a n g e r o u s d r u g s o r c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s

. . . . T h e O r d e r d i s c i p l i n e d N e e l y f o r p r e s c r i b i n g h i m s e l f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s o r c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s

. I t d i d n o t d i s c i p l i n e N e e l y f o r t a k i n g o r u s i n g d a n g e r o u s d r u g s o r c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s

. ” ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) )

.

7 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 0 )

. 34

I d

. a t 1 5

. 35

I d

. 36

I d

. a t 1 6

. 37



### 1 1

## Since Toledo failed to prese nt evidenc e establishing a prima fac ie case that KB MT’s repor t

was false, which is an element of her defa mation claim, the Act require s that her action be dismiss ed.

Acc ording ly
, we reve rse the judgme nt of the court of appea ls and rema nd the case to the trial court

for f urther pr ocee dings. 3 8



## Nathan L . Hec ht Chief J ustice

Opinion delivere d: J une 17, 2016

S e e T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E § 2 7

. 0 0 9 ( a ) ( “ I f t h e c o u r t o r d e r s d i s m i s s a l o f a l e g a l a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s 38

c h a p t e r , t h e c o u r t s h a l l a w a r d t o t h e m o v i n g p a r t y : ( 1 ) c o u r t c o s t s , r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s , a n d o t h e r e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n d e f e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e l e g a l a c t i o n a s j u s t i c e a n d e q u i t y m a y r e q u i r e [

. ] ” )

.



### 1 2