HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017903.jpg
1.84 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (federal supplement court opinion)
File Size:
1.84 MB
Summary
This document is a page from the Federal Supplement (Vol. 349, 2d Series) containing the header of a decision in the case *Lawrence Agee v. Richard Grunert, et al.* (D. Vermont, 2004). The case involves a physician suing his former partners for defamation and other torts after they reported his mental unfitness to practice; the court largely ruled in favor of the defendants, finding their statements privileged and required by ethics codes. The top of the page also contains the conclusion of a separate, unrelated case involving the 'SAAR Network' and 'Adel Batterjee' (likely the *Burnett* 9/11 litigation), and the footer indicates the document is part of a House Oversight Committee production.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lawrence Agee | Plaintiff |
Physician suing former partners for defamation and other claims.
|
| Richard Grunert, M.D. | Defendant |
Former partner of Agee.
|
| Chris Fukuda, M.D. | Defendant |
Former partner of Agee.
|
| Sessions | Chief Judge |
District Court Judge presiding over the Agee case.
|
| Adel Batterjee | Defendant (Previous Case) |
Mentioned in the snippet of the previous case (Burnett) at the top of the page; motion to dismiss denied.
|
| Burnett | Plaintiff (Previous Case) |
Mentioned in the snippet of the previous case at the top of the page.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc. |
Defendant in the Agee case.
|
|
| Copley Hospital |
Defendant in the Agee case.
|
|
| United States District Court, D. Vermont |
Court where the case was heard.
|
|
| SAAR Network |
Mentioned in the previous case snippet at the top; claims against them dismissed.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Producer of the document (via footer stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
October 1, 2004
Court decision rendered in Agee v. Grunert et al.
Vermont
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the District Court.
|
Relationships (2)
Plaintiff v. Defendant; text mentions 'former partners in medical group practice'.
Plaintiff v. Defendant; text mentions 'former partners in medical group practice'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Motions granted in part and denied in part."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017903.jpg
Quote #1
"Under Vermont law, the elements of defamation are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017903.jpg
Quote #2
"partners were required under ethics code to question physician's fitness when he attempted surgery despite not having slept for weeks and while on sleep medication"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017903.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,748 characters)
838 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
TVPA, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence claims against the SAAR Network are dismissed. Adel Batterjee's motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint is denied.
So ordered.
[KEY NUMBER SYSTEM GRAPHIC]
Lawrence AGEE Plaintiff,
v.
Richard GRUNERT, M.D., Chris Fukuda, M.D., Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., and Copley Hospital Defendants.
v.
Richard GRUNERT, M.D., Chris Fukuda, M.D., Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., and Copley Hospital Defendants.
No. 2:00-CV-169.
United States District Court,
D. Vermont.
D. Vermont.
Oct. 1, 2004.
Background: Physician brought federal statutory and state contract and tort claims against former partners in medical group practice and others, after partners reported his alleged mental unfitness to practice medicine and placed him on disability leave. Partners moved for summary judgment, and physician cross-moved for summary judgment.
Holdings: The District Court, Sessions, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) under Vermont law, partners did not make false and defamatory statements about physician in reporting his conduct;
(2) partners' statements were conditionally privileged;
(3) physician did not have claim for "restriction of trade" against doctors who raised legitimate concerns about his fitness to practice;
(4) partners' behavior in reporting physician's suspected mental unfitness was not extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally inflicted emotional distress;
(5) partners did not negligently inflict emotional distress;
(6) physician failed to exhaust administrative remedies on ADA claim; and
(7) physician was not employee for purposes of ADA claim.
(1) under Vermont law, partners did not make false and defamatory statements about physician in reporting his conduct;
(2) partners' statements were conditionally privileged;
(3) physician did not have claim for "restriction of trade" against doctors who raised legitimate concerns about his fitness to practice;
(4) partners' behavior in reporting physician's suspected mental unfitness was not extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally inflicted emotional distress;
(5) partners did not negligently inflict emotional distress;
(6) physician failed to exhaust administrative remedies on ADA claim; and
(7) physician was not employee for purposes of ADA claim.
Motions granted in part and denied in part.
1. Federal Civil Procedure 2554
On defendants' motion for summary judgment, district court would not consider new claims raised for first time in plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to motion. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.
On defendants' motion for summary judgment, district court would not consider new claims raised for first time in plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to motion. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.
2. Libel and Slander 1
Under Vermont law, the elements of defamation are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) some negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages.
Under Vermont law, the elements of defamation are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) some negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages.
3. Libel and Slander 30
Under Vermont law, partners in medical practice did not make false and defamatory statements in telling hospitals that physician had been determined to be disabled and that he was on disability leave; partners were required under ethics code to question physician's fitness when he attempted surgery despite not having slept for weeks and while on sleep medication, and their group practice agreement provided for his acquiescence in determination
Under Vermont law, partners in medical practice did not make false and defamatory statements in telling hospitals that physician had been determined to be disabled and that he was on disability leave; partners were required under ethics code to question physician's fitness when he attempted surgery despite not having slept for weeks and while on sleep medication, and their group practice agreement provided for his acquiescence in determination
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017903
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document