Opinion ID: 769131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defamatory statement

Text: 23 To support a claim for defamation, the communication must be false. U.J.I. 13-1006. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the falsity of the statement. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517; Hepps, 475 U.S. at 774-76; U.J.I. 13-1002(B)(4); Newberry, 773 P.2d at 1237. 24 It has long been accepted that truth is an affirmative defense to an action for defamation. Newberry, 773 P.2d at 1237. The law of defamation overlooks inaccuracies and focuses on substantial truth. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 516; U.J.I. 13-1006 Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as 'the substance, the gist, the sting of the [defamatory] charge can be justified.' Masson, 501 U.S. at 517 (internal citation omitted). If the statement produces 'a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced,' we will consider it to be false. Id. (quoting R. Sack, Libel, Slander, & Related Problems 138 (1980)). As such, [s]ubstantial truthfulness is a defense to an action for defamation. Ammerman, 572 P.2d at 1262; see U.J.I. 13-1006; Masson, 501 U.S. at 516-17. 25 Coastal filed claims of libel, slander and unfair and deceptive acts against Dr. Schwartz in North Carolina state court. See Aplt's App. at 149-60 (Coastal Complaint). Specifically, the Coastal complaint alleged that Dr. Schwartz made false and defamatory statements regarding Coastal in his February 1994 article in the Emergency Medicine News. The complaint also alleges that Dr. Schwartz made similar false and defamatory statements to stock analysts in an effort to deceive the public, to Coastal's customers, to Coastal's patients and potential patients, and to the public to cast doubt among the professional clinical community regarding Coastal's integrity. See id. at 159, 33. The Coastal complaint also asserted that Dr. Schwartz made such statements to affect negatively (i.e., lower) the price of Coastal's stock because, at the time, Dr. Schwartz held a short position in Coastal stock. See id. at 157, 24. 26 If Dr. McCabe had said Dr. Schwartz is being sued for making deceptive statements made relating to stock transactions, this statement would be unquestionably true. The record indicates that Dr. Schwartz's counsel conceded as much. See Aplt's App. at 365 (Order at 7-8). Mr. McCabe asserts his statement that Dr. Schwartz was being sued for stock fraud, although perhaps made with inattention to its legal accuracy was, under this record, only his layman's interpretation of Coastal's unfair and deceptive practices claim. See Aplt's App. at 142 (McCabe Affid. 8), 162. Also, even Dr. Schwartz's experts testified that a reasonable interpretation, from a layman's perspective, of allegations of deceit for personal gain may be characterized as fraud. Aplt's App. at 131, 136. Although technically inaccurate, the gist of Dr. McCabe's statement is substantially true and, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for a defamation action. Masson, 501 U.S. at 517; see U.J.I. 13-1006 (Insignificant inaccuracies of expression are not sufficient to support a communication that is false in a material way.). 27 We agree with the district court that [v]iewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Dr. Schwartz], he is unable to establish the legal falsity of the statement published by the defendants. Aplt's App. at 365. As such, the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517; U.J.I. 13-1002(B)(4); Newberry, 773 P.2d at 1237. We recognize the accuracy of the district court's observation that the existence of malice is a factual issue that normally should survive summary judgment, but we are confused as to its relevance in this proceeding. Dr. Schwartz's inability to establish the falsity of the statement, an essential element of a defamation claim, obviates our consideration of evidence of malice. With this caveat, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against Dr. Schwartz.