Kbmt Operating Company, LLC, Kbmt License Company, LLC, Brian Burns, Jackie Simien and Tracy Kennick v. Minda Lao Toledo
492 S.W.3d 710
| Tex. | 2016Background
- The Texas Medical Board issued a press release and posted an agreed order disciplining Dr. Minda Lao Toledo for "unprofessional conduct," stating she had sexual contact with a patient and became financially/personally involved; the agreed order (linked on the Board site) described facts showing the patient was an adult.
- KBMT located the press release, Toledo’s Board profile (which identified her as a pediatrician), and the agreed order on the Board website and broadcast a 30‑second TV report repeating that the Board punished a Port Arthur pediatrician for sexual contact with a patient and assessed modest sanctions; a later broadcast clarified the patient was an adult.
- Toledo sued KBMT for defamation, claiming the broadcast falsely implied she had sexual contact with a child (pediatric patient).
- KBMT moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which requires plaintiffs to establish each element of a claim by clear and specific evidence to avoid dismissal; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding Toledo failed to prove falsity as required by the First Amendment/TCPA for media reports on matters of public concern and that truth for reports of official proceedings is measured against the proceedings themselves.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff suing a media defendant over statements of public concern must prove falsity | Toledo: plaintiff must show broadcast gist was false—KBMT’s report implied sexual contact with a child | KBMT: under Hepps/McIlvain, plaintiff bears burden to prove falsity; report tracked Board proceedings | Held: Private plaintiffs suing media on public concerns must prove the gist was not substantially true (plaintiff bears falsity burden) |
| Proper baseline for "substantial truth" of media reports about official proceedings | Toledo: truth should be measured against actual underlying facts; reporting calling her a pediatrician without noting adult patient was misleading | KBMT: truth measured against official proceedings (press release/order); media may report proceedings without independent investigation | Held: Truth of media report of official proceedings is measured against the proceedings themselves, not outside facts; fair, true, impartial account suffices |
| Whether KBMT’s broadcast conveyed a defamatory gist (implied a pediatric patient) | Toledo: calling her a pediatrician and omitting patient age created a false and more damaging impression | KBMT: ordinary listener would not infer criminal sexual abuse of a child from a brief report of Board discipline; report mirrored Board materials | Held: As a matter of law, no ordinary listener would reasonably have understood the broadcast to mean sexual contact with a child; Toledo failed to present clear and specific evidence of falsity |
| Whether Toledo presented clear and specific prima facie evidence under the TCPA to avoid dismissal | Toledo: affidavit and evidence of inquiries from patients showed viewers were misled | KBMT: affidavit was conclusory/hearsay and insufficient under TCPA; broadcasts were fair account | Held: Affidavit and record did not meet TCPA’s clear-and-specific-evidence requirement; dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (substantial truth and meaning/gist doctrine)
- Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) (First Amendment requires private plaintiffs suing media on matters of public concern to prove falsity)
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (Texas precedent on substantial truth, official/judicial proceedings privilege, and burden principles)
- McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. 1990) (media-reporting-on-investigations measured against scope of official investigation rather than ultimate proved facts)
- Denton Publ’g Co. v. Boyd, 460 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1970) (official‑proceedings privilege is an affirmative defense)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (protection for robust public debate; context for New York Times/First Amendment principles)