WPC$ Ѐ*02CA9nwR*%U{;q|gk$$Gs/.vX㟷 Fޚ9KU'q-Q[Iu|z_p0rSfzl%?!s! D2Q4! [)]#TH(1EKLΗi}oi(-;" fDSkX#%Ʒ7ʁk: /m`3KX8~xuγwl'@N'!F"Hbr?#lCfy "x MjLn48 Cc(6? Cuf$K"S;G' á)^eR N1 u OI $*鋐dFيIs{B;MӜNC1w4 nȤ_M'㥤&:Xܳxq=ۘZ(%2j1l= U=b %\U@b 0?U>N^ / w; 4? zS    m 0D    ] ##NLE 1u 72VVV 1 72 0cA 0w 0 0 0E 0 0 0 0Db 0 B 0[ D3 D-+ 0KX X AS  0[! 0D# A[#(9 Z(Times New Roman (.$  ..8dd8    h$h9$9V("  Z6Times New Roman Regular}(L L-(C+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0  R5$  X <XW <Wu    1  XsXu  _ԀThecomplaintalsoallegesthatshewasforcedtoselfpublishthedefamationinattempting   tofindotheremployment. B R5$  X <XW <Wu    2  XsXu  _ԀThetrialcourtreservedjudgmentontheissueofselfpublicationpendingtheissuanceof   anopiniononthisissueinacasebeforetheTennesseeSupremeCourt.AftertheSupremeCourt  deniedtheviabilityofcompelledselfpublicationin Sullivanv.BaptistMemorialHospital ,995  S.W.2d569,571(Tenn.1999),thetrialcourtfollowedsuitanddismissedplaintiffsclaimonthis   issue,makingtheordergrantingsummaryjudgmentafinaljudgment.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) !"#$hCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)%"(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  - -(3G25$ .!  .8dd8    PP__      0  XX d(33G$ .!  .8dd8    PP__  VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(33G$ .!  .8dd8    PP__  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK .!  .8dd8    X <XW <Wu  _8sXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   @00%ATJACKSON ! @!APRIL2000SESSION 5( POu #uOP2#  GLENDAR.TATEv.BAPTISTMEMORIALHOSPITALPOu  7 * x@# #  ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty 9 , @p p No.85694TheHonorableKayS.Robilio,Judge '  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.W199900553COAR3CVDecidedJuly28,_2000_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A    P OOP  Hospitalemployeewasaccusedofnegotiatingpayrollchecksofotheremployeesandwas   discharged.Employeefileddefamationsuit,andtrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentbecausethe  pleadingsandaffidavitsestablishedthattherewasnopublicationoftheallegeddefamatorywords  sinceallcommunicationthereofwastohospitalemployees.#PO OP##uOPƻ#POu r  Tenn.R.App.P.3,AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  UH Crawford,_P.J._,_W.S._#uP#d (u,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHighers,J.,andFarmer,J.,joined. 1$ JoanneM.Jenkins,Memphis,ForAppellant  PaulE.Prather,RobertD.Meyers,JasonG.Wolfkill,Memphis,ForAppellee YL @' OPINION #u d!#POuԈ  #uOPƚ #POu*,XX"(#XX*P OOP  Thisisadefamationcase.Plaintiff,GlendaR.Tate,appealsfromtheorderofthetrialcourt t grantingsummaryjudgmenttodefendant,BaptistMemorialHospital(hereinafterHospital).Thesole i \  issueiswhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgment. Q!D!   Plaintifffiledthisactionaftershewasterminatedfromherpositionasasupplytechnician !## intheMaterialsManagementDepartment(hereinafterMMD)atHospital.Thecomplaintaversthat  $$ shewasaccusedofnegotiatinganotheremployeespayrollcheck,or,inotherwords, wasaccused $% ofhavingobtainedandcashedseveralcheckswhichdidnotbelongtoher.Sheallegesthatthe % & accusationwasfalseandwaspublishedtootheremployeesofthehospital. &!'   Areviewoftheaffidavitsandpleadingsinthecaseindicatesthatthereisnorealdisputeof (#) materialfacts. y)l$*   OnJune22,1996,eightpayrollchecksforHospitalsCentralSupplyDepartment(hereinafter I+<&, CSD),asubgroupofMMD,werereportedmissing.DorothyWattsCrossman,DirectoroftheMMD, 1,$'- confirmedwiththepayrolldepartmentthatthecheckshadbeenissuedandweremissing.She - (.G requestedreplacementchecksandturnedthematterovertopayrollandsecuritytoinvestigate.     Hospitalsecurity,ledbyLieutenantW.E.Richardson,investigatedthemissingchecks.  RichardsoninterviewedCeliaEasley,Crossmansmanager,regardingproceduresfollowedfor  distributingpayrollchecks.HealsometwithCarmenPattersoninHospitalpayrollwhoshowedhim  copiesoffourchecksthathadnotbeenrecoveredandfourchecksthatstoppaymentorderswere   issuedonaftertheywerenegotiatedbypersonsotherthanthepayee/employee. } p   LieutenantRichardsonalsospokewiththeownerofNewAsianFoodStoreon414N. M @ ClevelandinMemphis,Tennessee,whereseveralofthemissingcheckshadbeencashed.Hethen 5 (  obtainedalistofnamesandphotoidentificationofallCSDemployeesandshowedthephotostothe   ownerofPersonsBigStar,WalterPersonon4001ChelseaExtendedinMemphis,Tennessee,where   someoneattemptedtonegotiatethechecks.PersonandDianeMarcum,astoreemployee,identified   plaintiffasoneoftheindividualswhohadattemptedtonegotiatetwoofthemissingchecks.     OnAugust7,1996,Richardsoninterviewedplaintiffconcerningherinvolvementwiththe   missingpayrollchecks.Plaintiffdeniedcashinganychecksateitherlocation.Basedonthe  informationgatheredthoroughtheinvestigation,Richardsonconcludedthatplaintiffhadattempted uh tocashoneofthemissingpayrollchecksandoneofthereplacementchecksatPersonsBigStar. ]P   CrossmannotifiedplaintiffbyletterdatedAugust5,1997,thatshewassuspendedpending -  investigationofthemissingchecks.Afterhospitalconcludeditsinvestigation,itdischargedplaintiff  onSeptember5,1997,for wrongfullyattemptingtonegotiateanotheremployeespaycheck.    PlaintiffthenpursuedHospitalsproblemsolvingprocedure,athreestepinternalgrievance  process.Duringthefinalstep,ahearingwasheldbeforeahospitalpanelincludingemployeesand  managementpersonnel.OnNovember1,1996,thepanelupheldplaintiffstermination.    PlaintiffscomplaintallegesthattheHospitalnegligentlyandmaliciouslyinvestigatedthe m` missingchecksandthatasaresultafalsecommunicationharmingherreputationwaspublishedto UH otherhospitalemployees.  #  1       = 0   Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinpartstatingthatplaintifffailedtoestablishthat  "  HospitaloritsemployeespublishedanydefamatoryremarksaboutplaintifforthatHospitalorits "! employeesmadeanystatementthatwasknowinglyfalseorinrecklessdisregardofthetruth.p  #  2       #" Ї  Plaintiffhasappealed,andtheonlyissueforourreviewiswhetherthetrialcourtcorrectly   grantedtheHospitalsmotionforsummaryjudgment.    Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthatthere  arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter  oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenof   demonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622 } p (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview g Z oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthat O B party,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993), 7 *  ourSupremeCourtstated: !  8  8`   Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueof   materialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,by   affidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfact   disputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthe   nonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustset  forthspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterial yl factfortrial.8` x` xaT  Id. at21011(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). -    Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom  thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.  1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding  atrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe  trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.Estate  ofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).    Toestablishaprimafaciecaseofdefamation,theplaintiffmustestablishthat:(1)aparty aT publishedastatement;(2)withknowledgethatthestatementisfalseanddefamingtotheother;or I < (3)withrecklessdisregardforthetruthofthestatementorwithnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthe 1!$ truthofthestatement. Sullivanv.BaptistMemorialHosp. ,995S.W.2d569,571(Tenn.1999). "       Hospitalfirstassertsthatthetrialcourtcorrectlygranteditsmotionbecauseplaintifffailed #" toprovetherewasapublicationtoanyone.Publicationisanessentialelementofadefamation $# actionwithoutwhichacomplaintmustbedismissed. Applewhitev.MemphisStateUniversity ,495 % $ S.W.2d190,19293(Tenn.1973); Freemanv.DaytonScaleCo. ,159Tenn.413,19S.W.2d255, &!% 256(Tenn.1929); Woodsv.Helmi ,758S.W.2d219,22223(Tenn.Ct.App.1988). '"&   In Freeman ,theplaintiffbroughtsuitforlibelbasedonthecontentofalettersentbyan a)T$( agentofdefendant.Theplaintiffcontendedthatthelibelwaspublishedbydictationtoasecretary   andtranscribed.TheSupremeCourtheldthatacommunicationofadefamatorymattertoaco  employeeofacorporationisnotapublicationbecausethecoemployeehasnodistinctthirdparty  entity. Freeman ,19S.W.2dat258.Thecourt,inaddressingtheissueofcommunicationsbetween  employees,quotedwithapprovalfrom18A.L.R.772,778:  8  8`   Themoreliberalrule,andtheonewhichseeminglyhasthesupport  r oftheweightofmodernauthority,isthat,wherethecommunication g Z ismadetoaservantorbusinessassociateintheordinaryandnatural O B courseofbusiness,thereisnoactionablelibel.7 * ` x` x    Freeman ,19S.W.2dat257.       In Woodsv.Helmi ,758S.W.2d219(Tenn.Ct.App.1988),theplaintiff,acertifiedregistered   nurseanesthetist,broughtsuitagainstherimmediatesupervisorandothersseekingdamagesfor   allegeddefamationandwrongfulinterferencewithemployment. Id. at220.Theplaintiffandher   supervisorwerebothemployedbytheRegionalMedicalCenterinMemphis(TheMed). Id. The  Medhadauniquearrangementfortheoperationofitsanesthesiologydepartmentinthatithadits t ownpaidemployeesandalsohadphysiciansprovidedbytheUniversityofTennesseeemployedas i\ partofthestaffofTheMed. Id. at220-21.Theplaintiff'ssupervisorissuedamemoconcerning QD operatingroombehavioroftheplaintiffthatwassenttopersonswho"hadmanagerial,supervisory ;. oradministrativeresponsibilitiesandoversightfor[the]internalaffairsofTheMed'sanesthesiology # departmentandwereimmediatelyinterestedintheinformationtransmitted." Id. at222.TheCourt   notedthatcommunicationofdefamatorymattersbetweentheagentsandofficersofthecorporation  intheordinarycourseofbusinessisnotapublication. 򀀀Id. (citing Freemanv.DaytonScaleCo. ,  159Tenn.413,19S.W.2d255(Tenn.1929)).Inthisvein,theCourtsaid:  8  8`   Weinterpret Freeman anditsprogenytomeanthatcommunication  amongagentsofthesamecorporationmadewithinthescopeand t courseoftheiremploymentrelativetodutiesperformedforthat i\ corporationarenottobeconsideredasstatementscommunicatedor Q D publicizedtothirdpersons.9!,` x` x  Id. at223.  #!   In Perryv.Fox ,No.01A01-9407-CV-00337,1994WL715740,(Tenn.Ct.App.December $# 21,1994),plaintiffwasfiredfromhisjobatSouthCentralBellTelephoneCompany("SCB")after % $ beingaccusedofworkrelatedmisconductincludingmaliciousdestructionofproperty,impersonation &!% ofanotherSCBemployee,incorrectlydocumentingtime,andmakingunauthorizedrepresentations '"& toaSCBcustomer.PlaintifffiledadefamationsuitagainstFox,anemployeeofSCB,andSCB }(p#' baseduponamemorandumFoxpreparedanddistributedwhichstatedthatplaintiffhadbeen e)X$( terminatedformaliciousdestructionofpropertyandthatinthefutureplaintiffwouldnotbewelcome M*@%) oncompanyproperty.PlaintifffurtherallegedthatSCBfailedtomakeareasonableinvestigation 5+(&* intotheallegationsagainsthimbeforeterminatinghisemployment.Inupholdingthetrialcourt's   grantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants,thecourtstated:  8  8`   Itisanelementaryruleinthisstatethatpublicationisanessential  elementofalibelactionwithoutwhichacomplaintmustbe  dismissed. Applewhitev.MemphisStateUniversity ,495S.W.2d190   (Tenn.1973); Woodsv.Helmi ,758S.W.2d219(Tenn.Ct.  r App.1988).Takeninthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiff,the i \ memorandumwasdisseminatedtocertainfellowemployeesofthe Q D plaintiff.Thisactionfallsshortofpublicationwithintheambitofthe 9 ,  rule.Asstatedin Freemanv.DaytonScaleCo. ,159Tenn.413,19 !  S.W.2d255(Tenn.1929),"wherecommunicationismadetoa    servantorbusinessassociateintheordinaryornaturalcourseof   businessthereisnoactionablelibel."򀀀Seealso, Woods ,supra. ` x` x  Perry ,1994WL715740,at*2.     Inthepresentcase,plaintiffclaimsshewasdefamedbycommunicationstootherswhich r resultedinthefiringbeingcommonknowledgeinthehospital.However,plaintifffailstoestablish gZ whomadethecommunicationswhichshebelievestobedefamatory.Itappearsthatthe OB communicationsinthepresentcaseweremadebytheemployeesinthescopeandcourseoftheir 7* employmentrelativetodutiesperformedforthatcorporation.Thestatementsmadebysecurity  personnelwhilequestioningplaintiffandotherhospitalemployeesweremadeduringthecourseof  aninvestigation.Therefore,therequiredpublicationisnotpresent.    Theplaintiffarguesthatstatementsmadebyunidentifiedemployeestootheremployees  regardingplaintiffsterminationconstitutedefamationforwhichHospitalshouldbeliable.  However,plaintiffhasnotshownthatHospitalauthorizedthestatements.In SouthernIceCo.v.  Black, theCourtheldthatacorporationisnotheldliablefortheslanderouswordsspokenbyan yl employeeunlesstheplaintiffshowsthateithertheemployerauthorizedthespeakingofthe cV slanderouswords,orthatitwouldbenecessaryforanemployeetospeakthemintheperformance K > ofthedutyassignedtotheemployee,orthatthestatementshadbeenratifiedbytheemployer. Id.  3!& at398. "    Furthermore,evenifthestatementsmadebyHospitalaredefamatory,webelieveHospital #" isentitledtosummaryjudgmentbecauseitsstatementsareconditionallyprivilegedunderacommon $# interestprivilege.  % $   In Patev.ServiceMerchandiseCo.,Inc. ,959S.W.2d569(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)thiscourt &!% discussedconditionalprivileges:  h  '"& 8  8`    Aconditionalprivilegeisrecognizedwheretheinterestwhich a)T$( thedefendantisseekingtovindicateorfurtherisregardedas I*<%) sufficientlyimportanttojustifysomelatitudeformakingmistakes. 1+$&* W.PageKeetonetal.,ProsserandKeetonontheLawofTorts,   115,at825(5thed.1988).TheTennesseeSupremeCourtauthorized  conditionalprivilegesin SouthernIce.Co.v.Black ,136Tenn.391,  189S.W.861(1916):` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xQualifiedprivilegeextendstoallcommunications   madeingoodfaithuponanysubjectmatterinwhich  r thepartycommunicatinghasaninterest,orin g Z referencetowhichhehasadutytoapersonhavinga O B correspondinginterestorduty;andtheprivilege 7 *  embracescaseswherethedutyisnotalegalone,but   whereitisofamoralorsocialcharacterofimperfect   obligation...Theruleannouncedisnecessaryin   orderthatfullandunrestrictedcommunication   concerningamatterinwhichthepartieshavean   interestmaybehad.Itisgroundedinpublicpolicyas   wellasreason.   8  8`    Id. at401,189S.W.861(citationsomitted);seealso Pricev.Sale , _R 8Tenn.C.C.A.382,3923(1918).I<` x` x   8  8`    Conditionalprivilegesmaycovermanydifferenttypesof   interestsincludingacommoninterestandapublicinterest.Keeton  etal,supra,at82631.Thecommoninterestprivilegehasbeen  recognizedinTennesseetocovercommunicationsbetween  employeesoragentsofthesamebusinessorcorporations.See Woods  v.Helmi ,758S.W.2d219(Tenn.Ct.App.1988); SouthernIceCo. ,  136Tenn.391,189S.W.2d861.` x` x     !"#$%(x3   `    *0 h 0h(#h(#*0(#(#0p(#(#*]Pp(#p(# 8  8`    Theprivilegecanbelost,however,ifthedefendantdoesnot -!  actwithgoodfaithoractswithactualmalice.Whenastatementis "  conditionallyprivileged,itisnotactionableunlessactualorexpress "! maliceisshownbytheplaintiff. Woodsv.Helmi ,758S.W.2d219, #" 224(Tenn.Ct.App.1988); SouthernIceCo. ,136Tenn.at401,189 $# S.W.2d861.Onceprivileged,thestatementispresumedtohavebeen % $ madewithoutmalice,andtheburdenisontheplaintifftoprove &!% expressmalice. Langfordv.VanderbiltUniversity ,44Tenn.App. '|"& 694,318S.W.2d568,576(1958).Toproveactualmalice,theremust s(f#' besufficientevidencetopermittheconclusionthatthedefendantin [)N$( factentertainedseriousdoubtsastothetruthofhispublication,and C*6%) thatpublishing,withsuchdoubt,showsrecklessdisregardfortruth ++&* orfalsityanddemonstratesactualmalice. Moorev.Bailey ,628   S.W.2d431,4334(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).` x` x  Id. at575576,577578.    In Dicksonv.NissanMotorMfg.Corp. ,No.87-289-11,1988WL9805,(Tenn.Ct.App.   Feb.10,1988),anemployee,Dickson,filedsuitagainsthisemployerforallegedslanderous  x statementsmadebyhissuperiors.DicksonwasfiredfromtheDefendantcorporationfor m ` insubordinationandforspeakingtohissuperiorinanobsceneandthreateningmanner.Inholding U H thattheDefendants'statementswereprotectedunderaqualifiedprivilege,thisCourtstated: = 0  8  8`   Oneisentitledtolearnfromhisassociateswhatisbeingdoneina    matterinwhichhehasaninterestincommonwiththem.This   interestintheircommonaffairsentitleshimtoinformationastohow   theyareconducted,ortoinformationthataffectstheircommon   interest,eventhoughheisnotpersonallyconcernedwiththe   information.RestatementofTorts2d.1977--596,commentc.` x` x *** eX 8  8`   ThisCourtagreeswiththeargumentofdefendantsthat,whereaplant 5( employeeisdischarged,theemployerhasaprivilegedrighttostate  andtheotheremployeeshaveaprivilegedrighttohearthatthe  dischargehastakenplaceandthegroundstherefor,statedingeneral  terms.` x` x  Id. at*7-8.    TherecorddoesnotshowactualmaliceonthepartoftheHospital,nordoestherecord wj indicatethathospitalactednegligentlyininvestigatingthemissingchecks.Thestatementsby _R Hospitaltoitsemployeesregardingthereasonforplaintiffsterminationareprivilegedundera G : commoninterestprivilegeand,therefore,arenotactionable. /!"   Accordingly,forthereasonssetoutabove,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummary "! judgmenttodefendantisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,Glenda #" R.Tate. $#    `     h     ____________________________________ &!%    `     h     W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDING 'z"&    `     h     JUDGE,_W.S._ o(b#'   #PO OPB ##uOP #POu W)J$( #uOPze#POu