Memorial Hermann Health System v. Miguel A. Gomez, III, M.D. and Miguel A. Gomez, M.D., P.A.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a judgment awarding damages to cardiovascular surgeon Miguel A. Gomez and his professional association on defamation and business disparagement claims against Memorial Hermann Health System. The court held that the jury charge referred to specific quoted statements, not generally to the dissemination of mortality data, and concluded that no evidence showed publication of one statement or supported damages based on the other. The court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Memorial Hermann.

Holdings

1. The plain text and context of the jury charge required the jury to determine whether Memorial Hermann published Auzenne's specific quoted statement to Gomez, not whether Memorial Hermann generally published the underlying mortality data.
2. No legally sufficient evidence supported defamation or business-disparagement liability based on Auzenne's statement because there was no evidence that the statement, as quoted in the charge, was published to a third party.
3. No legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's awards for Gomez's reputational damages or his professional association's lost profits because Todd's specific statement to Peña was not shown to have caused either injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the unobjected-to jury charge asked the jury to decide whether Memorial Hermann published the specific quoted statement made by Auzenne to Gomez, or instead whether Memorial Hermann generally published the mortality data referenced in that statement.
2. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the defamation and business-disparagement damages attributed to Auzenne's statement.
3. Whether legally sufficient evidence established that Todd's specific statement to Peña proximately caused Gomez's reputational damages and his professional association's lost profits.

Disposition

reversed