T h e H on or abl e G r eg or y F. V an T at en h ov e, U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of * K ent ucky, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

D r . Pat r i ck ’ s c ompl ai n t a l s o r ai s ed cl ai ms of f al s e- l i g h t i n v as i on of

pr i v ac y a n d i n v as i on of pr i v ac y by 1 p ub l i cat i o n of p ri vat e f act s, on b o t h of whi ch t he d i st ri ct co urt grant ed s um m ary judgm ent t o t he d ef end ant s. D r. P atri ck ’ s b rief

s o n a p p ea l ne i t he r m en t i o n no r arg ue t he jud gm en t as to tho se c l aim s and an y ap p ea l as to tho se NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0815n.06 Case No. 08- 4389 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ED WAR D PATR IC K, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. CLEVELAND SCENE PUBLISHI NG , LLC; THOM AS F RA NC IS, De fend ant s- App e lle e s.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , C hie f Judg e ; D AU G HTREY , C ir c uit Judg e ; a nd VAN TATENHOVE , District Judge. * ALICE M. B AT CH ELDER, Circuit Judge. Edwar d Patrick, M.D., Ph.D., appe als the order of t he dis trict court gra

nting summ ary judgme nt to defe ndants Cleveland Sce ne and T homas Fr ancis, a nd denying summar

y judgme nt to Patr i ck , i n P atrick’s action broug ht under the c ourt’s diversity jurisdiction claiming t

h a t C le v eland Sce ne’s publica tion of Fra

ncis’s ar ticle Playing D octor on October

27, 2004, was de famatory . Be cause we find that Dr. P atrick f ailed to demonstrate the thr e sh old re qu ir e me nt o f f

a lsi ty regardi ngthe ma in i mputatio n o r g ist of PlayingDo c tor

fo r h is de fa matio n c la im, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. 1cl ai ms i s t h er ef or e wa i v ed. D r. H ei m l i ch i s t he i nvent o r of t he f am o us “H ei m l i ch M aneuver” f o r t reat m ent of cho ki ng. T he 2 maneu ver ’ s ge nes i s ha s been i n s om e di s put e, wi t h D r . P at r i ck publ i cl y cl ai mi ng par t i al cr edi t f or i t s i nv ent i on. T hat i ssue , ho w ev er, i s no t ge rm an e to o ur d i sp o si t i o n o f D r. P atri ck ’ s claim s. M ic h a e l B o w e n sa id in h is d e p o sitio n tha t he , B o w e n , w a s a lso inc o n siste n t i n his u se o f t itl e s (i.e ., 3 re sid e n t o r in te rn ) to d e sc rib e this p o sitio n , b u t t h is m e re ly ex p la ins the p o ssib le ge n e sis o f so m e o f D r. P a tric k ’s i n con s i s t en cy r eg ar di n g t h em. I t doe s n ot a f f ec t t h e v er ac i t y of

Pl ay i n g D oct or ’ s g i s t , w h i ch i s a h ol i s t i c con ce pt n ot d e fine d b y the tru th o r fa lsity o f i ts ind ivid u a l co m p o n e n ts. Se e Or r v . T he Ar gu s - Pr e s s Co

. , 586 F. 2d 1108, 1112 ( 6t h Ci r . 1978)

. I t a l s o doe s n ot e x pl ai n D r . Pat r i ck ’ s i n con s i s t en ci es r eg ar di n g t h e du r at i on , l oca t i on , or f i el d of m e d ic ine o f his re sid e n c y. 2 I. Dr. P atr ic k is an e me rg e nc y me dic ine do c tor

wh o h a s ta

ke n a so me wh a t pe ri pate tic path thr ou g ho ut h is tra ini ng . H e be g an h is no n-med ic a l g ra du a te e du c a tio n b y e arn inga

Ph. D. in

e le c tr ic a l e ng ine e ri ngf

r o m P u rd ue Un ive rs ity

in 1 96 6, and

a me dic a l de g re e fr om I

nd iana Un ive rs ity in 1 97 4. Th e ne xt part

of Dr . Patr ic k’ s me dic a l tr a ini ng , w hic h inv olv e s his tim e sp e nt i n Ci nc inn a ti, O h i o , tr a i n i n g a tJ e w i s hH o s p i t a l u n d e r th e tu t e l a g e o f D r . H e n r

y H e i m l i c h , i t s d i r e c t o r o f s ur g e r y, 2 is the su bje c t of so me dis pute . T o be g in wit h, Dr . Patr ic k’ s p os iti on

and me dic a l f

ie ld d ur ingthi s perio d are un c le ar. Th e y are lis te d v ari ou sly

on his c ur ri c ula vit a e and

job a pp lic a tio ns a s: “Rotating Internship”; “ R es i d ent I ”; “Residenc y Surg ery

and Medic ine”; “Me dical Residency

/Medicine & Surg ery

(Rotating) ”; “Resident I (desig ned for

Emerg ency

Medicine) ”;

“ Inte rn sh ip/ Rot a tin g Em e rg e nc y Me d, Sur g e ry” ; “ PGI

Sur g e ry” ; “ Inte rns hip ” ; and “ Re sid e nc ie s, Fe llowships, P rec eptorships, Tea chingAppointments/Emerg ency Med i cine.” Dr. Patrick’ s

3 desig nations of the location of the claimed positions are also incons i s t en t ; t h e location is l isted

so me tim e s so le ly

a s Jew ish Ho sp ita l or

Un ive rs ity of

Cin c inn a ti, and

so me tim e s a s Jew ish

Ho sp ita l, University

of Cincinnati. Simi larly , Dr. Patrick’ s documents ar e not consistent in stating the y ear s duringwhich he he ld the position. For example, his L ima Hospital application clai m s t h at it ran3

fr om 1 97 4- 19 76 ; hi s D e arb or n Hos pit a l a

pp lic a tio n s ho ws it a s a

on e -ye ar p os iti on

in 1 97 5; a

nd his Scott Memorial hospital application expands it to a five-y ear position from 1975-1979. Dr . Patr ic k a lso c la ims that he wa s eng a g e d in othe r tr a ini ng a c tiv iti e s d ur ingthi s sa

me tim e peri od , in c lud ing— a c c or din g to h is A me ri c an M e dic a l A sso c iatio n p ro fi le — a po st- g ra du a te medical tra ining pr og ram in eme rg ency medicine at “Dea coness Hsp/Clevela nd” fr o m “9/1976 - 8/1978," a

nd a re sidency

at the He imlich I nstitut e, “Spec ialty : EM” from 1 9 7 6 to 1979 as repr esente d on a prof

essional liability

insurance application. Fur ther, on sever al cur

ricula vitae and jo b ap p l i ca t ions, Dr. Patrick ha s variously char acte rized the 1976 to 1979 period as a “spec ial residenc y ” or “ specia lly arr ang ed re sidency” “unde r direc torship of He n ry J . Heimlich” or “super vised by Henr y J. H e im li c h ” a

t v a r io u s h o s p ita ls. Dr. Patrick’s tra ining- related inconsistencies on these doc uments are exacer bated by his also listi ng multipl e birth date s for himself, ra ng ing f rom his actual birth date , October 7, 1937, to dates in 1942 and 1947. This car elessness — or worse — reg ardinghis birth date led to c o n fu s i o n i n 2005 within NES Healthca re G roup, for

whom Dr. Patrick wa s workingat the time, as to “whet h er t his was the same phy sician” — i.e ., whether the Edwar d Patrick whose O hio medical license listed a birth date of 1937 was the same Edwa

rd Patrick whose Nor

th Carolina medica l license listed a birth date of 1947. Not surprising ly , Dr. Patrick’ s claimed sti nt at J ewish Hospital in Cincinnati has g ener ated a flurr y of reque sts to that hospital, a sking for verific ation of his position there

. The re cord c ontains

e le ve n re qu e sts to the ho sp ita l, and on e to Dr

. He iml ic h, a sk ingfo r v e ri fi c a tio n o f t he ra ng e of tit le s, specia lties, and durations of Dr . Patrick’s time and tra ining ther e. F ranc is’s notes from his interview of Mic ha e l B o w e n , th e A dm i n i s tr a t i v e D i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p art m e n to f

S ur g e r y a tJe w i s hH o s p i t a l,

re fl e c t th is:4

Fr ancis: You co m p l ained to the medical boar d about g etting tons of ve rification reque sts [ reg ardingDr. Patrick] didn’t y ou? Bow en: B asica lly , t h ey

said they would look into it , and I

believe the y

did. And I do n’ t kn owwh o th e pa

rt ic ula rs we re , w ho wa s invo lve d w ithit. F ra nc is: Yo u w e re un c omf

or ta ble wi th t his ? Bow en: W ell, in my business if y ou see something ti me and ag ain . . . I t does make y ou wo nd e r. I t di dn ’t

take a ro c ket s c ie nti st t o f

igur e out so me thi ngwa s amis s. W h a tw a s th i s g uy u

p t o ? I j u s t s a i d , ‘ T h i s i s s o m e th i n g p e o p l e n e e d t o k e e p ane ye on.’ R.1 16 , d e p. ex . W WW at 13 (F ra nc is’ s n ote s f

ro m B ow e n inte rv ie w) . B ow e n s a id d ur inghis deposition that he was not surpr ised at the number of verific ation reque sts he was be ing shown by Cleveland Sce ne’s counsel. But it is unclea r fr om the transcr ipt of the deposition whether he mea nt th at h e w as n o ts urp ri s edb y t h e n u mb er

o f r equ es t s h e w as b ei n g sh own at his deposition, given the

numbe r that had be e n mad e , or that he wa s n ot s ur pr ise d b y the g ro ss n

umb e r o f r e qu e sts made to him

. Reg ardle ss, B owen confirme d in his deposition that the multit ude of ver ification re quests he had rec eived put him on notice that at least some instit utions we re questionin g Dr

. P at ri ck’s

c omp le tio n o f a

n e me rg e nc y

me dic ine re sid e nc y

a t Jew ish Ho sp ita l. Followinghis stint at J ewish Hospit al, which by Patrick’s va

rious acc ounts ran for

any wher e fr om o ne to fi ve y e ars e nd ing a s lat e a s 1 97 9, Dr . Patr ic k h a s p ra c tic e d at nume ro us ho sp ita ls, bo th as a staf f member and as a doctor hire d throug h staffingservice s (e.g ., Interim Phy s icians and Me dic a l D oc tor s A sso c iate s) . H e ha s tw ic e be e n r e mov e d f ro m, o r ha d his co ntr a c t not r e ne we d at, ho sp ita ls d

ue to, amon g other

thi ng s, qu e sti on s r e g ard ingthe natur e of his c la ime d r e sid e nc y

in

e me rg e nc y

me dic ine a t Jew ish

Ho sp ita l, d e fi c ie nt s te ri lizatio n p ra c tic e s, and patie nt c omp la int s. II. We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt, using the same standar d under Rule 56( c) use d by the district court. W ill iam s v . M

e hra , 186 F.3d 685, 689 ( 6th Cir. 1999)5

(e n banc ). We m

us t vi e w the e vid e nc e , a ll f a c ts, and any inf e re nc e s th a t ma

y be dr awn fr om t he fa c ts in the light most favor able to the nonmovingparty
. Ma tsu sh ita El e c . I nd us . Co . v . Ze nit

h R ad io Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgme nt is app ropriate when “ the pleading s, the discovery and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) . The fa ct that both parties ha ve filed summar

y judgme nt motions does not a lter the standar d by which we revie w these motions. “Rather , the cour t must evaluate e ach pa

rty ' s motion on i ts own merits, taking car e in ea ch instance to dr aw all rea sonable infe renc es ag ainst the party whose motion is un d e r c o n s id e r a ti on.” T a f t B roadcasting Co. v. United States , 929 F.2d 240, 248 ( 6th Cir. 1 9 9 1 )( qu o t i n g Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States , 812 F.2d 1387, 1391 (F ed. C ir. 1987)). Be cause this case wa s filed in fede ral c ourt in Ohio under diversity jurisdiction, we apply the substantive l aw o f Oh i o . “Unde r the Er ie doctrine, f eder al cour

ts sitt ing in diver sity

apply the substantive law of the forum state and fe dera l proce dural law .” Biegas v. Quic kway Carriers, Inc., 5 7 3 F. 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 4 (c i t i n g Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins , 3 04 U. S. 6 4 ( 19 38 )) . O hio ’s de fa matio n la w i s succinc tly explained in Bruss v. Vindicator Printing Co. , 672 N.E.2d 238 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996): In o rd e r t o e sta

bli sh a cla im of

de fa matio n, a pla int if f m us t sh owthat ( 1) a

fa lse s t a t e m e n t o f f

a c t w a s m a d e c o n c e r

n i n g h i m o r h e r ; ( 2 ) th e s t a t e m e n tw a s d e f am a t o r y; (3) the statement was written; (4) the state ment was published; and ( 5) in publishing the statement, the de fenda nt acted w ith the requisite deg ree of fault

. . . . To survive a motion for summary

judgme nt in a libel action, the plaintiff must make a sufficie nt showing of the e x istence of ever y el em en t essential to his or her case . . . . [ M] aterial falsi ty is an essential eleme nt of a libel claim. In Natl. Medic Serv . Corp. v. E.W . Scripps Co. . . . the cour

t, in construing f

alsity as an e lement in a libel ac tion, no te d th a t Pr of

e sso r P ros ser has state d: “ I t is su ff ic ie nt [i n d e fe nd inga g a ins t a defa mation action] to show that the imput ation is substantially true, or as it is often put, to just ify

the “g ist,” the “sting ,” or the s ubstantial truth of t he defamation.” The Ohio Supreme Court has he ld that i t i s for the c ourt to decide as a matter of law wh e the r c e rt a in s tate me nts a lle g e d to be de fa mator y are a c tio na

ble or no t.6

Br us s, at 240-241 (interna l citations omitted) (empha sis added) (abr og ated in par t on other g rounds b y W e lli ng v . W e inf e ld , 866 N.E. 2d 1051 (Ohio 2007) ). The district cour

t concluded that Dr. Patrick ha d the burde n of establishing the falsity of the Cle ve land

Sc e ne art ic le by

c le a r a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e be c a us e the matte rs c on ta in e d in the art ic le

wer e matter s of public conc ern, a nd, further , that beca

use Dr. Patr ick i s a “limi ted publ ic figure,” he ha d th e burd e n of de mon str a tin g a c tua l mali c e on the pa rt of the de fe nd ants . We do no t r e a c h th os e issues beca

use we conclude that even if Dr. Patrick w ere simply a private citizen claiming defa mation by the media, he would be require d to make the thre shold showing of falsity , a showing that the district court c orre ctly deter mined he fa iled to make. The district court held t hat t he gist of P laying Doctor is “twofold: the reporte d char acte r of Dr . Patr ic k' s 1 97 5- 19 76 re side ncy a t Jew ish

Ho sp ita l r a ise d q

ue sti on s a

bo ut t he de g re e of

his participation in and the thoroug hness of his r esidenc y training ; a nd, Dr. Patrick' s repr esentations of his medical trainingwer e either exagg erated or inac curate.” Pa tri c k v . Cle v e lan d Sc e nePu b. LLC , 582 F. Supp. 2d 939, 948 (N.D . Ohio 2008). Turning to the first of these two imputations, t he cour t held that Dr. Patric k failed to pre sent evidenc e of the materia l falsity of the a rticle’s c laims that Dr. Patrick’s va

rious applications and c urricula vitae conta ined sig nificant inconsistenc ies reg ardingthe d at es , cl ai m edfi el d s o f m ed i ci n e, an d p o s i t i o nt i t l es (i

. e. , i n t erno r r es i d en t ) o f h i s m ed i ca l t ra i n i n g, and of his birth date . Our re view of the re co rd co n fi rms that the re cord c ontains evidenc e of numerous inconsistencie s. Dr. Gor don Marg olin, the D i re ct o r of the Depar tment of Interna l Medicine at J ewish Hospital, had r efuse d to sign Dr. Patrick' s residenc y cer tificate, sa

ying that he had misg ivings a

bout doing so a

nd had aske d Dr. He imlich to si g n it on behalf of the hospital. Dr. He iml ic h s ig ne d th a t c e rt if ic a te , a nd c on fi rm e d tha

t D r. Patr ic k d id a

on e -ye ar r e sid e nc y

a t Jew ish7

Ho sp ita l, b ut d isc la ime d k no wl e dg e of

any re sid e nc y tr a ini ngpr og ra m do ne by

Patr ic k b e y on d th a t, thus casting doubt on Dr. Patrick’ s claims of a r esidenc y at the “He imlich I nstitut e” a nd a “spe cial residenc y ” super

vised by Dr. Heimlich afte r t he y ear at J ewish Hospit al. And while J ewish Hospital confirme d that Dr. Patrick spe nt the y ear there as a surgical

resident f

rom 1975-1976, it has responde d to n u m er o u s v erific ation reque sts disavowing a ny knowledg e of his completingan

eme rgency

medicine r e s id e n c y o r r e c e iv in g an y s p e c ia li ze d e me r g e n c y me d ic in e tr a in ing the re. Ind e e d, F ra

nc is’ s inte rv ie w n ote s and the de po sit ion s ta

ke n in thi s c a se sh ow that bo th Dr . M arg oli n and Mr. B owen state d that J ewish Hospit al had no r esidenc y prog ram in eme rg ency

medicine at the tim e Dr . Patr ick was th ere, but of fe re d r e sid e nc ie s o nly

in s ur g e ry

and int e rn a l me dic ine . T his evidenc e is unrebutted in the r ecor d. The other imputation of Pl aying D octor, that “ Dr. Patrick' s repr esentations of his medical trainingwer e either

exagg erated or inac curate,” is similarly supported by

the re cord e vidence . The

rec ord demonstrates many inconsistencies in Dr. P atrick’ s repr esentations of vi rtually all aspec ts of his medical training, i n cl u d i n g: the title (i.e., intern or r esident), medic al field (i.e ., emer g ency medicine or surg ery

), location (i.e., J ewish Hospital, University of Cincinnati, or the H ei m lich Ins tit ute ) a nd y e ar and duratio n (i .e ., va ri ou s y e ars and

tim e pe ri od s b e tw e e n 1 97 4 a nd 19 79 ) o f h is residenc y . The district cour t held t h at Dr

. Marg olin’s refusa l to sign Dr. Patr ick’s re sidency

cer tificate, D r. He imlich’s disc laiming any knowledg e of Dr. Patr ick’s tra ining be y ond the one year

a t Jew ish Ho sp ita l, a

nd Jew ish Ho sp ita l’ s r e fu sa l to c e rt if y that — c on tr ary to Dr . Patr ic k’ s c la ims — he had obta ined any training in emerg ency medicine while the re, tog ether with inconsistencies in Dr. Patrick’ s own documents, demons t ra t e t h at the g ist of Play ing D octor is substantially true. And the re cord suppor

ts the district court’s conclusion that althoug h Dr. Patrick ma de some attempt8

to r e but th is evi den c e , th e re butta l e vid e nc e is who lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o ma

ke the sh ow ingof

fa lsi ty

ne c e ssa ry to s ur viv e summa

ry jud g me nt. B e c a us e Dr . Patr ic k f

a ile d to make a sh ow ing of an ess e nti a l ele me nt o f h is d e fa matio n c la im — i.e., t hat the g ist of Play ing D octor is fa lse — he c annot survive the de fenda nts’ motion for summary judgme nt. The district court ther efor e did not er r i n g rantingsummary judgme nt to the de fe nd ants and

dis mis sin g the c omp la int

. III . For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.