Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, Inc.
46 N.E.3d 79
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- In April–June 2011, multiple complaints of abuse/neglect at Steward Carney Hospital’s adolescent psychiatric unit led state regulators (DMH/DPH/DCF) to investigate and threaten possible loss of the unit’s license.
- Carney placed unit staff (including the nurse-plaintiffs) on administrative leave, retained attorney Scott Harshbarger/Proskauer to review the unit, and Harshbarger recommended replacing unit personnel.
- Hospital president William Walczak fired multiple employees, sent an internal e-mail to staff explaining the terminations, and made statements to the Boston Globe summarizing the Harshbarger review and the hospital’s remedial steps.
- Plaintiffs (nurses) sued for defamation based on Walczak’s Globe statements and his May 27, 2011 internal e-mail; the Steward defendants moved to dismiss under Massachusetts’ anti‑SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H.
- The Superior Court denied the special motion; on appeal the SJC held the Globe statements were protected petitioning activity and must be dismissed under the anti‑SLAPP statute, but the internal e‑mail was not protected and that portion of the defamation claim survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walczak’s Boston Globe statements are protected petitioning activity under G. L. c. 231, § 59H | Globe statements publicly accused staff and were defamatory; not protected because aimed at reputation, not petitioning | Statements were made to influence regulators and respond to public pressure; mirror Harshbarger report and thus are petitioning activity | Held: Globe statements are protected petitioning activity and special motion must be allowed as to those statements |
| Whether Walczak’s internal May 27, 2011 e‑mail to staff is protected petitioning activity | E‑mail conveyed the same remedial message to show regulators action was taken; thus protected | E‑mail was internal communication tied to patient care and labor management, not aimed at government; no evidence regulators saw it | Held: E‑mail is not protected petitioning activity; special motion denied as to e‑mail-based defamation claim |
| Whether defendants met anti‑SLAPP threshold (claims “based on” petitioning activity alone) | Plaintiffs argued communications served multiple nonpetitioning purposes so claims not based solely on petitioning | Defendants argued Globe statements and report repetition were exclusively part of strategy to retain license | Held: For Globe statements defendants met threshold; plaintiffs failed to show petitioning activity was devoid of reasonable factual or legal support |
| Whether plaintiffs rebutted petitioning activity by showing lack of factual/legal support | Plaintiffs claimed statements were unsupported and defamatory | Defendants pointed to Harshbarger report, regulatory scrutiny, and ongoing investigation as factual support | Held: Plaintiffs did not meet burden by preponderance; petitioning activity had reasonable factual support, so dismissal proper for Globe statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Office One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113 (2002) (establishes anti‑SLAPP special motion framework and right to petition protection)
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (1998) (adopts two‑part burden test and "based on"/"sole purpose" interpretation)
- Cadle Co. v. Schlichtmann, 448 Mass. 242 (2007) (context matters; outlines petitioning categories in § 59H)
- Benoit v. Frederickson, 454 Mass. 148 (2009) (plaintiff must prove by preponderance that petitioning activity lacked reasonable factual/legal support)
- North Am. Expositions Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Corcoran, 452 Mass. 852 (2009) (broad definition of petitioning; consider statements in context)
- Wynne v. Creigle, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 246 (2005) (media statements can be petitioning when responsive or "essentially mirror images" of governmental filings)
- Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 443 Mass. 327 (2005) (limits petitioning protection; cautions against overbroad application)
- Global NAPS, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 600 (2005) (statements tangential to government attention are not necessarily petitioning)
- Burley v. Comets Community Youth Ctr., Inc., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 818 (2009) (statements to employees not protected absent link to governmental proceeding)
- Wenger v. Aceto, 451 Mass. 1 (2008) (application of anti‑SLAPP two‑part test and parsing of counts)