Hancock v. Variyam
345 S.W.3d 157
Tex. App.2011Background
- Hancock and Variyam were physicians on the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center faculty; a January 2, 2006 dispute over patient transfers precipitated the events.
- Variyam, then Chief of the Gastroenterology Division, was Hancock's supervisor; Hancock resigned after sending a letter accusing Variyam of disregarding patient care.
- Hancock's January 2 letter accused Variyam of lacking veracity and dealing in half-truths, and was sent to Variyam's superiors and ACGME in Chicago.
- In February 2006, Variyam was removed as Chief; in December 2006 he filed a defamation suit alleging Hancock’s letter defamed him.
- In November 2008, the parties agreed to forego special damages but kept the defamation claim under a per se theory; in May 2009 a jury found libel per se and awarded damages (actual $90,000, exemplary $85,000) plus prejudgment interest and costs.
- The trial court’s post-trial rulings and the subsequent appeal led to affirmance of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel per se determination | Hancock argues the statements are ambiguous and not injurious to Variyam’s profession | Variyam contends the statements injure Variyam’s professional veracity and reputation | Court held statements libel per se; written accusations of dishonesty in professional conduct are actionable per se. |
| Damages sufficiency | Variyam bears burden to prove damages; Hancock argues lack of proof | Damages presumed for defamation per se; evidence supports mental anguish and reputational harm | Damages for mental anguish ($30,000) and loss of reputation ($60,000) are legally and factually sufficient; damages presumed for per se defamation. |
| Self-publication/causation | Variyam’s own publication should limit liability or require apportionment | Publication by Hancock caused injuries; self-publication should not negate Hancock’s liability | Per se defamation negates need for apportionment; no error in instructing damages assignment; publication by Hancock established causation. |
| Anonymous letter admission | Admission of anonymous letter was relevant to the ACGME proceedings | Anonymous letter was irrelevant to libel per se issue | Admission was harmless error; the anonymous letter did not dispose of dispositive issues. |
| Exemplary damages | Exemplary damages appropriate given malice and multiple recipients | Exemplary damages alleged but must be constitutional; ratio considered | Exemplary damages not excessive under the three Bennett/BMW State Farm framework; conduct was highly reprehensible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. 1984) (defamation per se damages presumed; harm to reputation presumed)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1989) (implies fact-based assertion even in opinion language; explicit/implicit facts matter)
- Morrill v. Cisek, 226 S.W.3d 545 (Tex.App.-Houston 2006) (defamatory per se; injury presumed; context matters)
- Peshak v. Greer, 13 S.W.3d 421 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000) (defamation per se; damages presumed; standard of proof for general damages)
- Texas Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007) (distinguishes per se vs per quod damages; proof of damages varies by category)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (defamation per se damages; mental anguish and reputational injury presumed in many cases)
- Fox v. Parker, 98 S.W.3d 713 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003) (defamation per se; damages presumed; jury discretion in amount)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (constitutional framework for defamation standards in nonpublic/private issue cases)