Opinion ID: 200100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defamation Claim Against Dr. White

Text: 95 Although Dr. Singh sued both Blue Cross and Dr. White for defamation, he only appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment on the defamation claim against Dr. White. Dr. Singh claims that the following elements of Dr. White's report to the RAC were defamatory: 96 a. [Singh's prescription of] large numbers of narcotic analgesics ... raises serious questions about this practitioner. It may need official review; 97 b. narcotic analgesics are liberally prescribed ... raise[s] serious questions about the veracity of this practitioner...; 98 c. This practitioner seems to have a low threshold for prescribing narcotic analgesics; and, 99 d. ? Public Health Menace. 100 Under Massachusetts law, [a] defamatory communication is protected by a conditional common law privilege provided the publisher and recipient share some legitimate mutual interest `reasonably calculated' to be served by the communication. Catrone v. Thoroughbred Racing Ass'ns of N. Am., Inc., 929 F.2d 881, 887 (1st Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Dr. White and Blue Cross shared a legitimate mutual interest in peer review. Accordingly, the district court found correctly that these statements are protected by the conditional common law privilege. Singh, 182 F.Supp.2d at 179 (holding that Dr. White's statements in the audit report are protected by the common law privilege, and Singh has presented insufficient evidence to surmount the privilege). 101 Dr. Singh argues that malicious intent abuses the conditional common law privilege. On motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing abuse of the conditional privilege by clear and convincing evidence. Catrone, 929 F.2d at 889 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As evidence of such malice, Dr. Singh offers the unreasonable methods used to review Singh's practice. We have already decided in our discussions of immunity that no reasonable jury could find that the methods used to review Dr. Singh's practice were unreasonable. We see no reason to change our minds now. 102