Opinion ID: 36896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Dr. Berke’s Motion to Dismiss

Text: Finally, Anderson argues that the district court improperly dismissed her defamation (slander) claim against Dr. Berke. Anderson claims that, contrary to what the district court found, she properly alleged the elements of a defamation claim against him. First, she claims that Dr. Berke stated that she “altered a medical release form rendering it invalid to release confidential medical information.” Second, she argues that she “selfpublished” Dr. Berke’s statements to third parties when explaining to them why she was fired. Third, she argues that she was harmed by Dr. Berke’s statements because, as a result of them, the City fired her. Finally, she claims that she was further harmed because prospective employers are now reluctant to hire her. Dr. Berke responds that the statements that Anderson says are defamatory were made by him during a grievance hearing on Anderson’s discharge by the City. As such, Dr. Berke contends that his testimony is absolutely privileged under Texas law. Additionally, he claims that the district court properly dismissed Anderson’s defamation claim because the testimony that he gave--including the statement about Anderson altering a medical release form--was true. 26 The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s defamation claim against Dr. Berke. First, under Texas law, statements made during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings may not serve as the basis for a defamation claim. See Putter v. Anderson, 601 S.W.2d 73, 76-77 (Tex. App--Dallas 1980). Since Dr. Berke’s allegedly defamatory statements were made during a quasi-judicial administrative hearing regarding Anderson’s termination, they cannot serve as the basis of a defamation claim against him. Second, as the district court properly concluded, Anderson never alleged that Dr. Berke’s statements were false, and her own version of the facts of the case demonstrates that they were true (e.g., Anderson admits to not signing clean medical release forms). Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Anderson’s defamation claim against Dr. Berke. See Reeves v. Western Co. of North America, 867 S.W.2d 385, 393 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1993, writ denied) (holding that only a false statement can constitute actionable slander).