Opinion ID: 795837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ptasznik's Defamation Claim

Text: 22 Ptasznik also asserted a claim under Illinois law against the defendants for defamation. Ptasznik maintains that the defendants knowingly and falsely accused her of putting the patient's safety at risk during the sleep study, depriving the patient of 50% oxygen, and directly endangering the patient. Ptasznik contends the defendants published these defamatory statements in emails and documents created during its internal investigation of her conduct, as well as during an unemployment benefits hearing after her discharge. Ogunseye and Kurth later testified in their depositions that they lacked the expertise to make such conclusions. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and we affirm. 23 To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff, there was an unprivileged publication to a third party by the defendant, and the publication damaged the plaintiff. Popko v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 355 Ill.App.3d 257, 291 Ill.Dec. 174, 823 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ill.App.Ct.2005). Illinois law recognizes a per se cause of action for defamation when the defamatory statements are so serious that reputational injury may be presumed. Defamation per se claims include falsely imputing an inability to perform or want of integrity in the duties of office, employment, or profession. Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill.2d 299, 235 Ill.Dec. 715, 705 N.E.2d 898, 903 (Ill.1998). However, vague, unprovable statements and statements of opinion do not give rise to a defamation claim; instead, Illinois law requires that the allegedly defamatory statement contain an objectively verifiable factual assertion. Wynne v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 318 Ill.App.3d 443, 251 Ill.Dec. 782, 741 N.E.2d 669, 676 (Ill.App.Ct.2000). 24 Here, Ptasznik claims the defendants defamed her in various emails and documents that were circulated among hospital personnel during the investigation of the January 24 sleep study. For example, in an email to Human Resources Director Piekielny, Kurth wrote that Ptasznik put us at significant risk: the patient could have gone into arrhythmia and coded. Also, in a timeline Ogunseye and Kurth created entitled Grace termination events, the pair stated that Ptasznik's conduct placed the patient at significant risk. 6 According to Ptasznik, the truth of these statements is readily verifiable, and Kurth and Ogunseye knew them to be false. Although as a theoretical matter, the truth of Kurth and Ogunseye's statements may well be verifiable, we nonetheless conclude that summary judgment was proper because Ptasznik has failed to produce evidence suggesting that the statements were false. Ptasznik's own observations, as recorded on the technician impression sheet, indicate that the patient experienced steady low desaturation at 43% and 47%, which would have placed the patient at risk. Even if the readings were inaccurate because of a computer glitch, Ptasznik presents no evidence that she was aware of the degree of imprecision. Unless she knew that the degree of imprecision safely placed the patient above the 89% (desaturation) threshold, the evidence only supports a finding that Ptasznik should have taken action. Thus, Ptasznik's supervisor's statements were consistent with her own records of the study, and, without evidence to the contrary, a jury could not reasonably conclude that the statements were intentionally or recklessly false. 7 25 Ptasznik also argues that the defendants defamed her when Kurth, Ogunseye, and Piekielny testified at her unemployment benefits hearing that she directly endangered a patient which resulted in a critical risk of harm to the patient during a sleep study. This argument likewise fails. Illinois law provides the following absolute privilege for statements made during and in connection with an unemployment benefits proceeding: 26 Sec.1900.1. Privileged Communications. All letters, reports, or communications of any kind, either oral or written, from an employer or his workers to each other, or to the Director or any of his agents, representatives, or employees, made in connection with the administration of this [Unemployment Benefits] Act shall be absolutely privileged and shall not be the basis of any slander or libel suit in any court of this State unless they are false in fact and malicious in intent. 27 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 405/1900.1 (2006). 28 In Cianci v. Pettibone Corp., 298 Ill. App.3d 419, 232 Ill.Dec. 583, 698 N.E.2d 674, 680 (Ill.App.Ct.1998), the Illinois Appellate Court held that a supervisor's statements at an unemployment compensation hearing enjoyed absolute privilege because there was no evidence of reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. Similarly, here, the allegedly defamatory statements were made during an unemployment benefits hearing, and Ptasznik has failed to set forth evidence that the testimony was false and malicious. Therefore, the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment on Ptasznik's defamation claim.