Opinion ID: 511771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The conservative interpretation probably cost the patient her life.

Text: 29 2. The correct interpretation [of the EKGs] would have saved her life because a pulmonary embolism is fully treatable if it is diagnosed and quickly handled. 30 3. How can Dr. Meister be right when the patient is dead? 31 Moreover, referring generally to the entire incident, Nanavati stated: 32 4. I was concerned about everyone's life after that, I saw that man [the patient's husband] and I had to cover up for this doctor [Sorensen]. 33 5. I never knew medicine could be so shallow. 34 O'Neil testified at trial that Nanavati, in 1985, in a private conversation between the two, had referred to Sorensen as a 35 [6.] senile old doctor that had been there [at the Hospital] for twenty years killing patients. 36 The Hospital also sued Nanavati for slander, citing two statements made by Nanavati to the reporters in its slander claim. The defamation claim made by the Hospital against Nanavati relied in part on statement # 1 (the conservative interpretation statement) and statement # 5 (the shallow medicine statement). 37 As a result of Nanavati's allegedly slanderous remarks, an article appeared in the Atlantic City Sun on May 11, 1983. However, Sorensen and the Hospital sued for slander only, basing their claims on what was said to the reporters and not for libel based on the published report.