Opinion ID: 511771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fact/Opinion

Text: 46 Having found that jurisdiction exists, we must reach the merits of Sorensen's slander claim. We conclude that Nanavati's comments to the reporters fall within the realm of constitutionally protected opinion. 11 The Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62, 444 A.2d 1086, 1091 (1982). The Kotlikoff court cited the famous dicta of the Supreme Court: 47 Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. 48 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3006-07, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). See also Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 516 A.2d 220, 231 (1986) (citing Kotlikoff and Gertz ). 49 The decision to shield opinion from liability for defamation represents an attempt to balance the constitutional protection of speech with the rights of individuals not to be defamed. New Jersey favors the interests of free speech even though statements of opinions may cause injury, because, unlike false statements of fact, opinions are more likely to contribute to a robust debate. See Kotlikoff, 444 A.2d at 1091. 50 Recognizing this doctrine is, of course, only the beginning; the harder task is actually differentiating potentially unprotected false statements of fact from protected opinion. The district court recognized that opinion is protected but rejected Nanavati's arguments that his statements constituted opinion. Instead, relying heavily on the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 566, comment b (1977), the district court held that Nanavati's statements were unprotected mixed opinions because they implied the existence of undisclosed facts. For the reasons that follow, we will reverse that determination. 51 Recently, this court confronted the question of how New Jersey differentiates between fact and opinion. We determined that New Jersey would follow the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in determining the distinction. See Dunn v. Gannett New York Newspaper, Inc., 833 F.2d 446 (3d Cir.1987). 52 According to the Restatement approach that we applied in Dunn, and which the New Jersey Supreme Court has approved in Kotlikoff, 444 A.2d at 1089, and Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co., 104 N.J. 125, 516 A.2d 220, 231 (1986), pure opinions are either statements which provide the underlying factual assumptions of the speakers or statements made where those assumptions are known to the listener. Such pure opinion is fully protected. Mixed opinions, however, imply the existence of defamatory unknown facts that justify the opinion expressed. R. Smolla, Law of Defamation, Sec. 6.04, at 6-17 (footnote omitted); See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 566, comment c (1977). Where facts upon which the opinion is based are not disclosed and the listeners have no basis for knowledge, such mixed opinion does not merit absolute protection. 53 In applying the Restatement approach, therefore, the court must examine a statement in context. 12 The examination of context itself looks at many factors. Relevant here are considerations of the nature of the discussion in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made. In Kotlikoff, the court analyzed a letter to the editor of a newspaper and concluded that allegations of a huge coverup and a conspiracy were not, in context, allegations of criminal activity, but merely pejorative rhetoric. 444 A.2d at 1091. Statements surrounded by other statements of opinion (such as a debate on a controversial topic) are also likely to be understood as opinions. 54 The key factor in analyzing the statements at issue are the nature of the listeners' understanding. The circumstances of Nanavati's conversation with the reporters strongly favor treating Nanavati's statements as protected pure opinion. It is essential to emphasize that this is an action for slander for speech to reporters, and not libel for the published article. 55 The reporters to whom the alleged slander was spoken knew of the facts regarding this long standing and well-publicized feud. When Nanavati spoke to the reporters, the controversy between Nanavati and Sorensen had been raging in public for several years and the Hospital recently had released a comprehensive report of its investigation of Nanavati (the Black Book). That report included a discussion of the allegedly misread EKG, and a copy of Dr. Meister's report. The report also included a lengthy discussion of Nanavati's troubles with the Hospital and Nanavati's complaints about Hospital practices. That the reporters to whom Nanavati made his statements were aware of the existence of the Black Book and its contents is evidenced by their discussion of it in the articles. Thus, Nanavati addressed knowledgeable listeners who were aware that Dr. Meister had absolved Sorensen of any negligence. The reporters were obviously aware that the speaker was presenting his opinion of Mrs. Steinmeyer's death and that other doctors and the Hospital held firmly opposing views. Nanavati's interpretation of events contributes to a robust debate on matters of public importance, namely the competence of medical care at a hospital. 56 We will briefly discuss each allegedly defamatory statement in turn. Statement # 1, that conservative interpretation [of the EKG] probably cost the patient her life, and Statement # 2, that the correct interpretation would have saved the patient's life because a pulmonary embolism is fully treatable, on the facts of this case are both protected opinions under New Jersey law. Both statements assert exactly the same proposition: that had Sorensen diagnosed a pulmonary embolism, the patient would have lived. It is undisputed that Sorensen did not diagnose a pulmonary embolism, and Nanavati's statement provides the factual basis for the conclusion that a correct diagnosis would have saved the patient's life; namely that a pulmonary embolism is fully treatable. Beyond this, the only possible assertion in the statement is that a correct diagnosis by Sorensen, as opposed to a correct diagnosis by Nanavati, would have been acted upon. This is simply not defamatory. Furthermore, because the reporters were familiar with the long running dispute among the parties and knowledgeable about the underlying facts, the Restatement approach would protect these two statements as opinion. 57 Nanavati's question, statement # 3, [h]ow can Dr. Meister be right when the patient is dead? refers only to whether Meister was right to conclude that Sorensen was not at fault, and its rhetorical quality smacks of opinion. It also states explicitly the undisputed fact, the death of the patient, on which Nanavati based the view that Meister was wrong. However silly the statement may be as a refutation of Meister's judgment, the statement is clearly opinion. 58 Nanavati's statement # 4, that the Steinmeyer affair made him concerned about the lives of other patients and forced him to cover-up in discussions with the patient's husband seems at first blush, the most problematic of all the statements. Yet, all the statement conveys (albeit histrionically) is Nanavati's opinion that Sorensen was negligent. As noted above, the facts surrounding the incident were well known to the listeners, as evidenced by the articles. 59 Finally, we consider Nanavati's statement, I never knew medicine could be so shallow, assigned as a basis of liability only by the Hospital. To the extent Nanavati's meaning can be discerned from the context of the conversation, it appears that Nanavati was conveying his disgust for the pettiness of his adversaries, and his factual basis for believing his colleagues lacked depth had been disclosed to the listeners. 60 In sum, we find that New Jersey would not allow recovery for slander for the aforementioned statements, given the circumstances under which these statements were uttered.