The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy

Politics

$1.85M Dentist-on-Dentist Defamation Verdict Upheld

An interesting illustration of how big-dollar defamation verdicts can stem not from mass media publications or influencer social media posts, but from employment disputes.

|

From Brown v. Grundy, decided June 3 by Virginia Court of Appeals Judge Clifford Athey, joined by Judges Randolph Beales and Dominique Callins:

Dr. Brown and Dr. Grundy met while attending dental school together in the 1990s. In 2013, Dr. Brown hired Dr. Grundy to work for Charles H. Brown, III, D.D.S., P.C. as a licensed dentist. Over the course of Dr. Grundy's employment with the dental practice, the professional relationship between the dentists became strained due to, inter alia, disputes over access to "patient personal financial and account data." Eventually, in the fall of 2018, Dr. Brown and Dr. Grundy filed formal complaints against each other with the Virginia Department of Health Professions. On December 6, 2018, Dr. Brown subsequently terminated Dr. Grundy's employment with Charles H. Brown, III, D.D.S., P.C. When Dr. Grundy was terminated, the dental practice employed "7-9 full time associates," and Dr. Grundy estimated that he was the primary dentist for approximately 750 patients.

Dr. Brown drafted and published a December 4, 2018 letter, which was mailed to the patients of the dental practice, outlining his alleged reasons for terminating Dr. Grundy. In addition, the December 4th letter apologized "for the situation," committed to providing "additional information," and offered to review any past treatment provided by Dr. Grundy.

Grundy sued, and the court concluded that his claim could go forward based on these statements:

  1. "Unfortunately, Dr. Grundy has refused to adhere to some of those guidelines/regulations and the board of dentistry is currently looking into those issues."
  2. "Dr. Grundy has been advised on this but has continued to refuse to adhere to certain guidance specifically given to me by the Board of Dentistry regarding his actions and lack of compliance."
  3. "I have no explanation for his refusal and he would not provide one to me."
  4. "I cannot go through the entire list, in part to protect Dr. Grundy's privacy, so I will just touch on some of the more serious causes that you have a right to know and that I feel I can disclose."
  5. "There are other serious causes that I cannot disclose."
  6. "In addition to the reasons above, the termination is also due, in part, to complaints. If Dr. Grundy has said anything to you in the office or on the phone, that makes you uncomfortable, or that you consider inappropriate, please notify a manager or me so that we can confidentially and privately document the interaction."
  7. "There is some additional information that I am required to give to you. The [D]epartment of Health and Human Services OCR oversees HIPAA and the protection of patients' private information. There are also now issues related to Dr. Grundy's handling of his former patients' protected personal and private information."

The jury awarded Dr. Grundy $1.5M in compensatory damages and $500K punitives (lowered by the judge to the $350K statutory maximum). On appeal, Dr. Brown argued that statements (a), (c), (f), and (g) should have been excluded "because they are statements of opinion, lack [a defamatory] 'sting,' or both"; but the appellate court disagreed.

Alan B. Croft and Lawrence J. McClafferty (McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.) represent plaintiff.