Court Opinion

ID: 9720378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:28:29.824615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:25.060684
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part)
I concur in affirming the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to re*914spondents on appellant’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the trial court’s judgment on appellant’s remaining claims should also be sustained.
Before discussing the critical question in this case, these preliminary considerations need to be addressed:
(1) The qualified privilege claimed by respondent is a significant one. The legislature has expressly stated the public policy of this state “to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse” and “to require the reporting of neglect, physical or sexual abuse of children.” Minn.Stat. § 626.556, subd. 1 (1990); see also State v. Odenbrett, 349 N.W.2d 265, 269 n. 5 (Minn.1984) (state has “a compelling interest in identifying and protecting victims of child abuse”). As he acted toward the ends of this public policy, respondent Thorne is accused of defamation for raising through appropriate channels “the question of abuse of the children with a mother who has acted so irrational toward me.” The question of malice— abuse of the privilege — must be considered in the context of the strength of the applicable privilege.
(2) Appellant has the burden to prove abuse of the privilege. Frankson v. Design Space Int'l, 394 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn.1986). Appellant’s claim of malice cannot be viewed in a vacuum but must be supported by the “totality of [the] evidence.” Id. at 145; see also Harvet v. Unity Medical Ctr., Inc., 428 N.W.2d 574, 579 (Minn.App.1988) (issue should not have been submitted to the jury “where the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of malice”).
(3) There is no evidence of damage in this case. Any damage incurred by appellant from her inability to get insurance has been caused by her unilateral decision to cancel her existing health insurance before applying for new insurance. To the extent appellant is seeking to claim presumed damages, her claim is subject to the higher, constitutional standard of actual malice articulated in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349-50, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3011, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).1
(4) A decision to remand in this ease, as a practical matter, can only be justified by the proposition that the trial court erred in failing to attach significance to the statements made by Don Blyly in his affidavit.
With these considerations in mind, a proper view of the scant evidence of malice offered by appellant reveals that it is insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Blyly states in his affidavit that Thorne “indicated” that he had made the notations in Blyly’s chart to “get back at” Strauss. The words “get back at” are Blyly’s words, a statement of his opinion or interpretation; they are not a quotation, nor does Blyly assert that Thorne said words to that effect.2
Blyly’s statements are inadequate to support a finding of malice for two reasons. First, an affidavit submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment cannot simply assert general statements of fact, but rather must allege specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial. Erickson v. General United Life Ins. Co., 256 N.W.2d 255, 258-59 (Minn.1977). Argumentative and conclusory statements are not sufficient. Urbaniak Implement Co. v. Monsrud, 336 N.W.2d 286, 287 (Minn. 1983).
*915Second, a witness may only testify in the form of opinion or inference when it is “rationally based on the perception of the witness” and “helpful” to the fact finder. Minn.R.Evid. 701. Blyly’s affidavit provides no foundation or basis for evaluating whether his opinions and interpretations are rationally supported. As a result, it is not admissible and cannot be considered on summary judgment. Minn.R.Evid. 701; Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.05. Accordingly, even though this rationale was not advanced by the trial court, the trial court’s failure to give weight to Blyly’s statements in his affidavit was proper. This court will affirm the trial court’s decision if it can be sustained on any ground. Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722, 727-28 (Minn. 1990) (appellate court will not reverse correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reason); Myers ex rel. Myers v. Pnce, 463 N.W.2d 773, 775 (Minn.App. 1990) (court of appeals will affirm judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 4, 1991).
Finally, even if the quoted words of respondent Thorne are viewed more severely, the trial court correctly concluded that they failed to indicate ill will in circumstances where the statement was made and handled in accord with a statutory duty of Thorne’s profession, with a reference only to the evidence observed by the doctor, and without publication inconsistent with the duty to report.
Thus, the trial court should be affirmed on all counts. I respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse and remand on two of appellant’s claims.

. The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to require "actual malice” before awarding presumed or punitive damages in a private litigants/private issue case and suggested that the Gertz rule may apply to media defendants only. Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 258 n. 5 (Minn.1980). But see Culliton v. Mize, 403 N.W.2d 853, 856 (Minn.App.1987) (refuting expansive reading of Stuempges as governing all cases involving private plaintiffs and nonmedia defendants; finding exception for issues of public concern). See also Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (distinction between subjects of public concern and private interest).

. The significance of Blyly’s failure to quote or specifically paraphrase is underscored by the next sentence of his affidavit which purports to quote Thorne. Blyly states that Thorne "claimed that he had ‘worded it very carefully’ so that he was not actually accusing [Strauss] of child abuse, but merely raising the possibility.” This specific quote actually supports a conclusion of no malice.