First District Court Judge Kevin Miller resolved a civil case that pitted a claim of First Amendment rights on the Internet against a claim of defamation focusing on a local physician late last week.
The case, which was filed by Dr. Greg Salard and his wife, Laura Salard, claimed that former Wrangell resident Lisa Gillen defamed him and his practice via private messages on Facebook last year.
The charges leveled at Gillen revolved around statements allegedly made in an online chat session about the physician, his family, and his ability to practice medicine. The filing sought damages exceeding $50,000, the Salards’ attorney fees, and other relief.
In an interview from 2012, attorney Michael Nash, who represented the Salards, said Gillen was making it difficult for the physician to practice in Wrangell due to the online conversations.
“Ms. Gillen has interfered with the relationship between Dr. Salard and one or more of his patients,” Nash said. “She has done so by sending false information via the Internet.”
In his ruling, Judge Miller said that argument, among others, failed.
“In order to prevail on his defamation claim, Dr. Salard must prove by a preponderance of the following elements: (1) That Ms. Gillen made a defamatory statement about Dr. Salard; (2) That the statement was false; and (3) That she communicated the statement to a third party,” Miller wrote. “Because this case involves statements that are about a matter of public interest, i.e. the granting of hospital privileges to Dr. Salard or becoming one of his patients, the fourth element requires Dr. Salard to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Gillen knew that the statement was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement … There was little or no evidence about whether Ms. Gillen knew that her statements were false … Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Salard did not meet his burden of proof on the defamation claim.”
Judge Miller also rejected a claim of infliction of emotional distress by Gillen.
“Dr. Salard claims that Ms. Gillen’s actions were extreme and outrageous, were intended to inflict severe emotional distress and that her actions resulted in severe emotional distress,” Miller continued. “I find that Dr. Salard has not met his burden on this claim. One of the elements of this is that the plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress. Dr. Salard’s testimony on this issue is that he suffered a ‘small amount,’ … I further conclude that Ms. Gillen’s statements were not made with intent to merely harass. Instead, she was, albeit crudely and using facts that I have concluded are more than likely false, trying to persuade the community on the issue of granting Dr. Salard privileges, being one of his patients and the makeup of the Wrangell Medical Clinic Board. I base this conclusion on the exhibits, which contain numerous Facebook postings where Ms. Gillen expresses her concerns not only about Dr. Salard, but also about the recall of the Wrangell Medical Clinic’s Board. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Salard did not meet his burden of proof on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.”
Judge Miller also rejected two additional claims made by the Salards – invasion of privacy and interference with economic advantage.
When contacted, Laura Salard said neither she nor Dr. Salard had a comment at this time.
“We have not actually seen the ruling,” she said. “Our attorney is out of town and he has not seen it, so until he gets back into town and we’ve had a chance to sit down and look at the ruling, we can’t comment.”
Nash, however, provided an emailed statement regarding his interpretation of the decision – and what the next step might be.
“The court found that the allegations made by Ms. Gillen were false and defamatory and consequently actionable,” Nash wrote. “Unfortunately, the court determined that Salard and his attorney had failed to prove that Ms. Gillen did not believe her allegations. At trial, Ms. Gillen admitted she knew that an administrative law judge had found Dr. Salard innocent. Dr. Salard and I, his attorney, have not been able to discuss the case because I am out of town. A decision about whether to appeal will be made after further study and reflection.”
Reader Comments(0)