Barmada v. Pridjian
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00764-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2008 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Defamation - Qualified privilege - Malice Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J., without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Pridjian. Case Number: A2401-2002-0083 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HAZEM BARMADA, M.D. |
WENDY C. HOLLINGSWORTH |
|
|
| Appellee: | ARA K. PRIDJIAN, M.D. | GAIL D. NICHOLSON, CHESTER D. NICHOLSON | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Defamation - Qualified privilege - Malice |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dr. Hazem Barmada sued Dr. Ara Pridjian for alleged defamation arising out of their working relationship as heart surgeons at Memorial Hospital at Gulfport. Pridjian filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted, finding that a qualified privilege applied and that there was no evidence before the court of malice. Barmada appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Barmada argues that summary judgment granted in favor of Pridjian was not proper because statements made by Pridjian are not protected by a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege is a communication made in good faith and on a subject matter in which the person making it has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person or persons having a corresponding interest or duty, even though it contains matter which without this privilege would be slanderous. In the present case, the only evidence presented shows that Pridjian made statements to Memorial administrators, doctors, the surgical staff, and an independent reviewer. These individuals were directly interested in the matter; and therefore, the qualified privilege applies. Pridjian, the heart team and the medical personnel shared a direct interest in Barmada’s competency. A plaintiff must present affirmative evidence demonstrating actual malice to defeat the qualified privilege. Barmada makes numerous allegations of malice and bad faith. In his deposition, Barmada testified that Pridjian was behind a phone call made to one of his surgical patients’ room on the eve of surgery telling them to switch to another surgeon because Barmada was a bad surgeon. Barmada does not support this allegation with any actual proof that Pridjian had anything to do with this call. While Pridjian acknowledged that the call was made, he testified that he had nothing to do with it. Barmada asserts that Pridjian unsuccessfully tried to stop another physician from assisting him in a surgery. However, Barmada admits to his lack of first-hand knowledge of the events. Barmada makes countless assertions that Pridjian’s harsh comments to Memorial staff were malicious. Barmada did not produce affirmative evidence of malice to overcome the presumption of good faith; and therefore, summary judgment was appropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
