Palepu, S. v. Bondi, R.
458 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- In 2012, nurse Barbara Moore reported that Dr. Palepu made a disparaging age-related remark in the operating room; she relayed this to her supervisor Gina Ruggieri.
- Richard Bondi, Chairman of Surgery at UPMC McKeesport, learned of the report, spoke with Ruggieri, and later relayed the reported incident at a peer review committee meeting.
- Palepu sued Bondi in 2014 alleging false light, defamation, and injurious falsehood based on Bondi’s statements to the peer review committee; the court allowed defamation and injurious falsehood claims to proceed.
- Bondi moved for summary judgment asserting statutory peer-review immunity under the Peer Review Protection Act unless he knowingly provided false information.
- Palepu conceded key facts: Moore believed Palepu made the remark, Ruggieri confirmed Moore’s report, and Bondi was relaying the reported incident rather than offering his own fabricated account.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bondi; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Palepu failed to raise a genuine issue that Bondi knew the information was false.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because credibility issues should go to a jury | Palepu: Bondi knowingly relayed false information, so immunity doesn't apply; credibility disputes preclude summary judgment | Bondi: Protected by Peer Review Protection Act; he relayed a report and had no reason to know it was false | Summary judgment affirmed — no evidence Bondi knew or should have known the information was false |
| Whether Bondi lost conditional privilege by falsity | Palepu: The statement to committee was false and made with knowledge of falsity | Bondi: He merely relayed what Moore reported and relied on supervisory confirmation; no fabrication | Held for Bondi — Palepu produced no evidence of Bondi’s knowledge of falsity |
| Whether plaintiff’s concessions undermine her claims | Palepu: Concessions do not resolve disputed credibility that a jury must decide | Bondi: Plaintiff’s concessions admit the incident was reported to him and he did not invent it, defeating falsity/knowledge element | Court: Concessions fatal to plaintiff’s ability to oppose summary judgment |
| Whether statutory privilege bars both defamation and injurious falsehood claims | Palepu: Claims survive because falsity and scienter are disputed | Bondi: Statutory immunity applies absent evidence of deliberate falsehood | Court: Statutory privilege applies; no genuine issue of material fact on scienter |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 696 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 1997) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Shomo v. Scribe, 686 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1996) (summary judgment review principles)
- Kleban v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 771 A.2d 39 (Pa. Super. 2001) (moving party’s burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 674 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 1996) (non-moving party may not rely on pleadings alone to avoid summary judgment)
- Cooper v. Del. Valley Med. Ctr., 630 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1993) (Peer Review Protection Act bars liability unless provider knew information was false)
- Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. 1996) (recognition of conditional privilege in communications sharing a common interest)
- Commonwealth v. Wheaton, 598 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 1991) (on sufficiency of appellate statements for review)