Opinion ID: 700634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: willis's defamation claim

Text: 22 Second, Willis seeks damages arising from the publication of the false positive test results. Roche responds that Willis signed a consent form granting permission to release the results of such tests to the company. The pertinent consent form language reads, I furthermore give (outside laboratory) my permission to release the results of such tests to the company. (Record Vol. 1, p. 252). However, we need not address whether this release was effective because we agree with the district court's reasoning that in any event Roche's communication was qualifiedly privileged. 23 The district court assumed arguendo, without holding, that there was no valid consent and that the report was defamatory, but found that Roche's publication was qualifiedly privileged, citing Boze v. Branstetter, 912 F.2d 801, 806 (5th Cir.1990). The opinion reasons: 24 The privilege advances the need for free communication of information to protect business and personal interests. Gaines v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 681 F.2d 982, 986 (5th Cir.1982). In order for the moving party to prevail on a summary judgment asserting this privilege, however, an absence of malice must be shown. Houston v. Grocers Supply Co., Inc., 625 S.W.2d at 801 [ (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981) ]. 25 The only manifestation of malice established by plaintiff stems from the very fact that the test results were false. The law is clear,  '[m]alice is not implied or presumed from the mere fact of the publication, nor may it be inferred alone from the character or vehemence of the language used, nor found from the falsity of the statement alone.'  Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Wherry, 548 S.W.2d at 754 [ (Tex.Civ.App.1976) ] (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate express malice or implied malice. (Record Vol. 1., p. 424) 26 Willis does not directly challenge this holding, but it is not entirely clear that he has abandoned his defamation claim. We nonetheless agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the district court and hold that it was correct in granting Roche summary judgment on the defamation claim.