Opinion ID: 6334457
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Memorial Hermann publish the statement?

Text: 2. Was the statement false at the time it was made as it related to Dr. Gomez? 3. Was the statement defamatory concerning Dr. Gomez? 4. Did Memorial Hermann know or should it have known in the exercise of ordinary care that the statement was false and had the potential to be defamatory? 5. Should Dr. Gomez, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, statements. We did not reach the argument because of our disposition of other issues. Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 623 n.95 (Tex. 2018). 8 have discovered the statement before September 17, 2011? Each of the questions referred to “the statement”. The jury was also asked for each of the two statements whether they disparaged Gomez’s professional association. As on the defamation claim, the jury was instructed to “[a]nswer the following questions with respect to” each statement set out in quotation marks. The jury was instructed that “Memorial Hermann disparage[d] Gomez PA if it publishe[d] a disparaging false statement about the business”. The jury was further instructed that “[a] statement is ‘published’ if it is intentionally communicated to a person other than Dr. Gomez who is capable of understanding its meaning.” 5 The questions about the Auzenne statement confused the jury. In a note to the court during its deliberations, the jury asked: “[D]oes the court want to know if the exact statement [by Auzenne] as quoted was published or if the data referred to in the statement is being published?” The trial court recognized that instructing the jury to consider whether the data were published rather than the quoted statement would revert to the question Gomez had proposed originally and the court had rejected. But the trial court also acknowledged that instructing the jury to consider only the quoted statement itself was tantamount to directing 5 See COMM. ON PATTERN JURY CHARGES, STATE BAR OF TEX., TEXAS PATTERN JURY CHARGES—BUSINESS, CONSUMER, INSURANCE & EMPLOYMENT PJC 110.1 (2020) (explaining that the defamation and business disparagement questions “assume as their subject a single allegedly defamatory statement”); PJC 110.2 (proposing that the jury be asked: “Did [defendant] publish the following: [insert alleged defamatory matter]?”); PJC 110.15 (providing model business disparagement question, asking the jury to consider “only” the submitted statements, which must be “defined by pleadings and proof”). 9 a verdict for Memorial Hermann because there was no evidence that Auzenne made the statement to anyone but Gomez and therefore did not publish it. Although the court believed “the intent of the question is to inquire about the data”, it declined to alter the question Gomez had agreed to submit. Faced with this conflict, the trial court instructed the jury simply “to answer [the questions] to the best of the jury’s ability as the jury understands the questions.” The jury found no illegal antitrust conspiracy or tortious interference with business relations on the part of Memorial Hermann. But the jury did find for Gomez on the defamation and business disparagement claims, answering all questions regarding the Todd and Auzenne statements in his favor. The jury awarded damages for loss of reputation, mental anguish, lost profits, and exemplary damages. In total, the trial court’s final judgment awarded Gomez over $6.3 million. The court of appeals affirmed. It rejected Memorial Hermann’s argument that the question to the jury was whether Auzenne’s statement itself was published as quoted in the charge, holding instead that the question inquired whether the data referred to in the statement were published. 6 Similarly, the court rejected Memorial Hermann’s argument that the jury was asked whether Todd’s exact statement to Peña caused harm, holding instead that the question inquired whether a “whisper campaign” of “circulating rumors” about Gomez, of which Todd’s statement was typical, caused harm. 7 Based on this 6 584 S.W.3d 590, 612 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019). 7 Id. at 614-615. 10 interpretation of the jury charge, the court of appeals determined that the record contained evidence that the data Auzenne referred to in his statement to Gomez were published, 8 and that the Todd statement caused harm to Gomez’s reputation and lost profits to his professional association. 9 We granted Memorial Hermann’s petition for review.