24-ica-264
W. Va. Ct. App.May 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Robert Harris, a gynecologist, alleged defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after Warner Law Office published advertisements seeking clients who had allegedly been sexually abused by a local gynecologist.
- The advertisements, published on Facebook and in local newspapers owned by Clarksburg Publishing Co. (CPC), did not mention Dr. Harris by name but referenced a gynecologist in the Weston, WV area.
- Harris claimed these ads damaged his reputation, led to loss of employment, and caused severe emotional distress.
- The Circuit Court of Lewis County granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the ads were not defamatory nor outrageous enough for IIED.
- Harris appealed, challenging the legal findings and certain procedural aspects of the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Harris's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ads were defamatory statements | Ads implied he committed sexual assault; actionable. | Ads were questions, not statements; not defamatory. | Ads not capable of defamatory meaning as a matter of law. |
| Consideration of extrinsic evidence | Court erred by taking judicial notice at dismissal stage. | Judicial notice is proper under Rule 12(b)(6). | Any error harmless; did not affect outcome. |
| Whether ads supported IIED claim | Ads were outrageous and caused severe emotional distress. | Conduct not sufficiently outrageous for IIED. | No outrageous conduct; IIED claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Addition of Record Delta in case caption | Improperly added as party; prejudicial to Harris. | Record Delta just a trade name for CPC. | Style change harmless; no prejudice or merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1983) (defines elements for a defamation action by a private individual)
- Travis v. Alcon Lab’ys, Inc., 202 W. Va. 369, 504 S.E.2d 419 (W. Va. 1998) (explains required elements for IIED and test for outrageous conduct)
- Long v. Egnor, 176 W. Va. 628, 346 S.E.2d 778 (W. Va. 1986) (court must determine if challenged statements are capable of defamatory meaning as legal question)
- Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., Inc., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (W. Va. 1977) (complaint should not be dismissed unless no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (W. Va. 1995) (de novo standard for reviewing dismissal orders)