Opinion

Schottenstein v. Silverman

  • 128 A.D.3d 591
  • 10 N.Y.S.3d 63
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
May 26, 2015
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 46.7%

The opinion

*592

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 5, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the cause of action for libel per se, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a physician who treated a workers’ compensation claimant, alleges that he was defamed in his profession by a report prepared by defendant, a consultant hired by the workers’ compensation insurer to determine whether certain medications and treatment prescribed the claimant were indicated. Plaintiff alleges that defendant exceeded the scope of his assigned task by reporting that the medical records he reviewed indicated possible fraudulent billing and unnecessary treatment rendered, and recommending that the matter be referred to the Office of Professional Misconduct and the Attorney General’s Office.

Defendant’s communications are not cloaked with absolute immunity since there is no showing that he was engaged in a public function when he published the report

(see

Workers’ Compensation Law § 20;

Toker v Pollak,

44 NY2d 211 , 219 [1978]). There were no adversarial proceedings at the time of the report’s publication

(see Okoli v Paul Hastings LLP,

117 AD3d 539 [1st Dept 2014];

Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v Icahn Enters. L.P.,

99 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2012],

lv denied

20 NY3d 863 [2013]). Nor are defendant’s communications subject to qualified immunity since plaintiffs detailed allegations, accepted as true for purposes of this motion, are “sufficient to potentially establish [actual] malice”

(see Weiss v Lowenberg,

95 AD3d 405, 406 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted];

Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock,

5 AD3d 106, 109 [1st Dept 2004]).

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since defendant’s report fails “ ‘to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community’ ”

(see Howell v New York Post Co.,

81 NY2d 115, 122 [1993]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.