Blogging law prof didn't defame plaintiff with 'between the lines' analysis, appeals court says
A University of San Diego law professor didn’t defame a plaintiff who sued for disability benefits when he described a ruling in the case and offered his own opinion on his blog, a California appeals court has ruled.
The April 2 opinion (PDF) by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the suit filed against the professor, Shaun Martin, his employer and the law dean, the National Law Journal reports. The court also ordered the defamation plaintiff, Melanie Welch, to pay attorney fees.
The appeals court said Martin’s blog post summarizing the benefits ruling was protected by the true and fair report privilege, and his comments about the case were non-actionable statements of opinion. The appeals court relied on California’s anti-SLAPP law in dismissing the suit.
Welch had sued over Martin’s January 2012 blog post about a benefits ruling in her favor. Welch was a former middle school teacher who sought disability benefits after she was attacked by students and then stayed home from work, resulting in her firing, according to the appeals court.
Martin had written that the ruling may have been correct as a legal matter. He went on, however, writing, “Let’s read between the lines a little bit to figure out what’s really going on here.”
Martin noted the trial court had found Welch was unable to prove she was disabled, but the appeals court reversed based on her allegation that she delayed applying for benefits because of misinformation supplied by the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which affected her ability to prove her claim. The January 2012 ruling in Welch’s favor ordered new proceedings in the case.
Martin commented on Welch’s claim that she had received incorrect information about her eligibility for benefits. “Welch says she made her phone call and was falsely told she didn’t qualify for benefits,” Martin wrote. “A call to an unnamed person on an unknown date with no evidence other than Welch’s testimony.”
Martin wrote about allegations that Welch had hit and kicked middle school students and his “strong sense” that the allegations weren’t new.
“Maybe all of this is complete justice,” Martin wrote. “But maybe not. Depends profoundly upon your point of view.”
The appeals court said Martin’s “read between the lines” statement was mere prefatory language. His statement about Welch’s “call to an unnamed person” was based on the benefits opinion. His “strong sense” wording identified the statement as opinion rather than fact, and his “point of view” statement invited readers to form their own opinion.
Updated at April 10 to add missing word.
