Schaetzel v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa, Corp.

WILLIAM PAUL SCHAETZEL, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HEALTH SERVICES-IOWA, CORP.and MERCY MEDICAL CENTER-DUBUQUE, Defendants.

No. 17-CV-1007-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

June 26, 2018

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................ 2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION .......................... 2

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ......................... 3

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................ 4

A. The Parties ....................................... 4

B. Overview of the Dispute ............................... 4

VI. ANALYSIS ............................................ 6

A. Count I: Defamation ................................. 6

1 Parties' arguments .............................. 7

2. Applicable law ................................. 7

3. Application .................................. 8

a. Libel per se .............................. 9

b. Libel per quod ........................... 10

B. Count II: Breach of Contract .......................... 11

1. Parties' arguments ............................. 11

2. Applicable law ................................ 12

3. Application .................................. 12

C. Count III: Interference with Contract ..................... 13

1. Parties' arguments ............................. 13 2. Applicable law ................................ 14

3. Application .................................. 15

VII. CONCLUSION ........................................ 16

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendant Mercy Health Services-Iowa, Corporation's¹ ("Mercy") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion") (docket no. 42).

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff William Paul Schaetzel filed a Complaint (docket no. 1) against Defendants Mercy and Does 1-10 (collectively, "Defendants") asserting the following claims: (1) defamation of character; (2) breach of contract; (3) injurious interference with contract; and (4) invasion of privacy. See Complaint at 3-6. On June 1, 2017, Mercy filed an Answer (docket no. 3) denying liability. On June 6, 2018, Schaetzel voluntarily dismissed Does 1-10 and Count IV of the Complaint. See June 6, 2018 Order (docket no. 48) at 1. On May 3, 2018, Mercy filed the Motion. On May 22, 2018, Schaetzel filed a Resistance (docket no. 46). On May 24, 2018, Mercy filed a Reply (docket no. 47). No party has requested oral argument and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims because complete diversity exists between the parties and Schaetzel alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.").

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show'" an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quotation omitted). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986)). "The movant 'bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must identify 'those portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant has done so, "the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324).

On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial," and summary judgment is appropriate. Ricci, 557 U.S. at 586 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). "The nonmovant 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts' . . . ." Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586). Instead, "[t]o survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must 'substantiate his allegations with sufficientprobative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.'" Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003)). Mere "self-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010).

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and affording him all reasonable inferences, the uncontested material facts are as follows:

A. The Parties

Schaetzel is a resident of Douglas County, Kansas. Complaint ¶ 2. Mercy is an Iowa corporation doing business as Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque in Dubuque County, Iowa. Id. ¶ 4.

B. Overview of the Dispute

On April 17, 2015, the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County ("Iowa District Court") awarded Schaetzel temporary guardianship of his father-in-law, Harold Lindstrom. Id. ¶ 12. On that same date, Lindstrom was admitted to Mercy for treatment. Id. ¶ 14. On April 26, 2015, Schaetzel visited Lindstrom at Mercy. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 42-2) ¶ 6. During this visit he "used a ballpoint pen to puncture the air valve" of Lindstrom's feeding bottle. Appendix in Support of Motion (docket no. 42-3) at 18; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 6. The attending nurse notified the nursing supervisor, Riley Miller, of what Schaetzel had done. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 7.

Schaetzel admitted to Nurse Miller that he had punctured the air valve and stated that he would not interfere further with hospital medical equipment. Id. ¶ 8. Nurse Miller subsequently documented both that Schaetzel had punctured Lindstrom's air valve and theconversation between himself and Schaetzel in Lindstrom's medical records. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. The statement reads in its entirety:

Nursing staff phoned House Supervisor to speak to [Schaetzel] regarding [his] interruption and manipulation of the patient's tube feeding. When I approached [Schaetzel] two young women were scratching his head as if [he] were a dog and he was kicking his legs and giggling. I introduced myself and asked [Schaetzel] if he was interrupting the administration of the tube feeding. He readily admitted with a smile that he, "was a physician," that he, "is a type-a personality," that he "wanted it to go faster," that he, "thought it wasn't going fast enough," that he, "did think there was a vacuum within the bottle and so he punctured it and then all of the fluid started to . . . come out." I asked [Schaetzel] if he understood that was not acceptable. He said, "Yes, I shouldn't have done that." I asked [Schaetzel] if he intended to do that if he understood that was not acceptable. He said, "Yes, I shouldn't have done that." I asked [Schaetzel] if he intended to do that again. He said, "No, I won't." I asked [him] if he knew what to do in the future should he have any questions about the tube feeding infusion or think something ought to be done differently with the infusion. He said, "I suppose I could call the nurse, but . . . ok, I'll call the nurse in the future." [Schaetzel] then asked if we could please increase the rate of the tube feeding so that [Lindstrom] could get more tube feeding, "because he's been malnourished for so long." I explained that we do want to prevent the risk of aspiration[,] pneumonia, and suffocation and drowning by way of tube feeding, to which [Schaetzel] responded, "Yes, yes, yes, I understand all of that; after all, I am a physician." I thanked [Schaetzel] for his time and parted.

Appendix in Support of Motion at 41.

On April 28, 2015, Schaetzel contacted Mercy's pharmacy and spoke with an employee, Dr. Kate Kurt, regarding "the accuracy of the pumped feedings being administered to" Lindstrom. Complaint ¶¶ 30-31. Schaetzel asked to be transferred to the dietary department. Id. ¶ 31. Schaetzel contends that Dr. Kurt offered to contact thedietary department herself, but never did so. Id. ¶¶ 32-33.

On May 1, 2015, a hearing was held in the Iowa District Court to determine whether Lindstrom continued to require a guardian. Appendix in Support of Motion at 42. On May 4, 2015, the Iowa District Court determined "that the temporary guardianship [was] in contravention of [Lindstrom's] wishes" and concluded that the temporary guardianship was no longer necessary. Id. at 43. Accordingly, the Iowa District Court granted a motion to terminate the temporary guardianship and removed Schaetzel from his position as temporary guardian. Id. at 43-44.

VI. ANALYSIS

The Complaint contains three remaining claims. In Count I,...