Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System
2013 ND 136
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Dr. John Schmitt, a physician, applied for a locums tenens position at St. Joseph’s Hospital (Dickinson) after prior employment with Dakota Clinic (ended 2004) and MeritCare (ended 2007).
- St. Joseph’s required credentialing; Dakota Clinic answered "do not recommend" and MeritCare would not respond until Schmitt signed a separate release authorizing MeritCare to provide information and releasing MeritCare from liability.
- MeritCare completed the questionnaire: checked "would recommend" but handwrote "with reservation," and answered "yes" to disciplinary action, explaining an action plan for "insensitive comments and irritability" and that Schmitt resigned before completing it.
- Schmitt claimed St. Joseph’s rescinded an offer and that he was subsequently denied privileges elsewhere, and sued MeritCare (and Dakota Clinic) for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and violation of state antitrust law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for MeritCare dismissing all claims; Schmitt appealed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation (statements on questionnaire) | MeritCare’s technically true answers conveyed defamatory meaning by innuendo/insinuation | Responses were truthful, not fairly susceptible of defamatory meaning; privilege/immunity defenses available | Court: Responses, read in context, are not reasonably or fairly susceptible to defamatory meaning; summary judgment affirmed |
| Defamation (alleged delay/silence) | MeritCare’s untimely response implied a negative assertion about competence | Silence/delay is not actionable as defamation; plaintiff offered only conclusory assertions | Court: Delay/silence not reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning; summary judgment affirmed |
| Tortious interference with prospective advantage | MeritCare’s conduct (and alleged concert with Dakota Clinic) disrupted prospective relationships | No independent tortious or otherwise unlawful act; defamation claim dismissed so no predicate wrong | Court: No independent unlawful act shown; conspiracy/economic-boycott theory unsupported by evidence; claim fails |
| State antitrust claim (contract/combination/conspiracy) | MeritCare and Dakota Clinic acted as a combination/monopoly to deny privileges | Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement or combination | Court: Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions insufficient to raise genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mr. G’s Turtle Mountain Lodge, Inc. v. Roland Twp., 651 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 2002) (standards for defamatory innuendo and summary judgment resistence)
- Jose v. Norwest Bank, 599 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1999) (publication requirement and innocuous employer communications not defamatory)
- Moritz v. Medical Arts Clinic, P.C., 315 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1982) (court determines whether communication is capable of defamatory meaning)
- Trade’N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2001) (elements of tortious interference with prospective business advantage)
- Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C., 467 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1991) (qualified privilege issues in medical-credentialing contexts)
- Granger v. Deaconess Hosp., 138 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1965) (authority cited re: validity of releases in credentialing context)