Steven Graboff v. Colleran Firm
744 F.3d 128
3rd Cir.2014Background
- AAOS grievance proceedings against Dr. Graboff arising from draft report used in Jones v. Meller.
- AAOS published a public summary in AAOS Now describing the grievance but omitting Graboff’s exculpatory testimony.
- Graboff sued AAOS for defamation and false light invasion of privacy based on the AAOS Now article.
- Trial lasted 12 days; jury found no false statements but found false light and awarded damages of $196,000.
- District Court treated the jury findings as favoring Graboff on false light and AAOS on defamation; post-trial motion denied.
- Court of Appeals held the jury findings could be reconciled to support liability on both claims, but the error was harmless and affirmed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdicts are legally inconsistent | Graboff argues the jury’s finding of no false statements precludes liability for false light | AAOS argues the verdicts are incompatible due to falsity definitions and split interrogatories | Verdicts can be reconciled; error harmless; affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred in treating the interrogatories and liability as split between defamation and false light | Graboff contends the court should read the interrogatories as supporting liability on both claims | AAOS contends the court correctly separated defamation and false light bases | District court erred in treatment, but error harmless; judgment upheld |
| What is the applicable legal standard for defamation and false light under Pennsylvania law | N/A | N/A | Court clarifies defamation requires falsity or false implication; false light tort covers false impressions from true statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements of defamation under Pennsylvania law; defamatory meaning and publication)
- Hill v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., Rostock, 435 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2006) (harmless error standard in appellate review of jury verdicts)
- Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment as a matter of law)
- Pitts v. Delaware, 646 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2011) (duty to read verdicts to resolve inconsistencies)
- Mosley v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 1996) (duty to read verdicts to resolve inconsistencies (quoting))
- Larsen v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (false light recognized; falsity by implication; broad definition of falsity)
- Dunlap v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 448 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (defamation by implication where true statements convey false impression)
- Krajewski v. Gusoff, 53 A.3d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (false light and defamation analysis under Pennsylvania law)