1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20862

Summary Calendar

CAMIL I. KREIT, M.D., In Propria Persona Sui Juris,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROD CORRADO, Individually; PATRICIA CONSTANCE, Assistant CEO,

Individually, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

USDC No. 04:05-CV-564

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Plaintiff Camil I. Kreit, M.D., appeals the judgment of the district court

dismissing his breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and defamation claims

againstthe defendants, named as Rod Corrado andPatricia Constance. Corrado

was the claims adjuster and Constance is the CEO of Kreit's medical malpractice

insurer. In May 2003, a Texas jury returned a verdict against Dr. Kreit in a

medical malpractice case that exceeded Kreit's policy limits. Kreit's claims
No. 06-20862

2

against the defendants arise from the settlement by Corrado with the

malpractice plaintiff for an amount within the policy limits. Kreit's claims

against the insurer were dismissed and Kreit does not challenge that dismissal.

No contract exists between Kreit and the remaining defendants. In addition,

Kreit asserts no legal basis for finding a fiduciary relationship between him and

the defendants. The district court found that Kreit's defamation claim was

barred by the defense of limitations. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the

plaintiff's claims for essentially the reasons stated in the district court's

Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 20, 2006. In addition to the

reasons stated by the district court, we note that Kreit's defamation claim is

barred on its face by the defense of qualified privilege, because, as Kreit

acknowledges, federal law requires that all medical malpractice settlements

(including frivolous or nuisance suits) be reported to the National Practitioner's

Data Board. 42 U.S.C. 11101, et seq.; Moore & Associates v. Metropolitan Life

Ins. Co., 604 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. App. 1980). The defamation claim also fails based

on the defense of the truth. Fiber Sys. Int'l v. Roehrs, 470 F.3d 1150, 1164 (5th

Cir. 2006). 

Because the defendants question the timeliness of Kreit's notice of appeal,

we note thatthis court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Although Kreit filed his

notice of appeal more than 30 days after entry of the opinion announcing the

district court's disposition of the defendants' motions to dismiss, the notice of

appeal was filed several months before the district court entered its final

judgment. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2), a "notice of appeal

filed after the court announces a decision or order - but before the entry of the

judgment or order - is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry."
No. 06-20862

3

Accordingly, Kreit's notice of appeal was timely and this court has jurisdiction

to consider his appeal. 

AFFIRMED.