Anthony J. Gingo, Jr., M.D. v. Jane Hanak

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed judgment in favor of Anthony J. Gingo, Jr., M.D., in a defamation action arising from Jane Hanak’s Yelp review. The court upheld summary judgment on defamation per se, the compensatory and punitive damages awards, the exclusion or quashing of certain witness subpoenas, and Hanak’s designation as a vexatious litigator.

Holdings

1. Statements accusing a physician of rape, sexual predation, insurance fraud, surgical misconduct, and participation in hate crimes and human-rights abuses constituted defamation per se because they imported indictable criminal offenses involving moral turpitude and tended to injure the physician in his profession.
2. When statements constitute defamation per se, damages and actual malice are presumed; therefore, Gingo was not required to prove actual damages or actual malice to establish liability.
3. Hanak failed to establish qualified privilege because she presented no evidence that the statements were made in good faith, were limited in scope, or were published in a proper manner to proper parties.
4. Summary judgment was proper because Gingo met his initial burden and Hanak failed to present admissible Civ.R. 56 evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoenas or excluding Irene Fox's testimony because the proposed witnesses lacked personal knowledge of Gingo's damages, and the truth of the statements was no longer at issue at the damages hearing.
6. The compensatory and punitive damages awards did not constitute plain error.
7. Hanak could not use this appeal to challenge her vexatious-litigator designation because she had already been declared a vexatious litigator in a different case and was required to appeal that earlier decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gingo on the defamation-per-se claim when Hanak disputed the falsity of statements in her Yelp review.
2. Whether Gingo was required to prove actual damages or actual malice for the Yelp statements.
3. Whether Hanak's statements were protected by qualified privilege because they concerned public health and safety.
4. Whether the trial court improperly considered portions of Hanak's deposition and unauthenticated exhibits in deciding summary judgment.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by quashing subpoenas and excluding testimony from proposed nonparty witnesses.
6. Whether the compensatory and punitive damages awards constituted plain error.
7. Whether the trial court properly addressed Hanak's vexatious-litigator status.

Disposition

affirmed