The article defines defamation, discusses how to avoid a defamation action, and suggests defenses against a defamation action. Several examples are given that demonstrate common situations where liability exists and how a physician should respond. The article explains that at times we have a duty to speak and differentiates between our legal, moral, and ethical duty. Defamation should not be a concern for those involved in the peer review process, as long as they are truthful or act in a good faith belief that what they are saying is true. The article should enhance peer review by encouraging physicians to participate without fear of a retaliatory law suit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JosephsonB. Essential Principles of Torts, The Center for Creative Educational Services, Culver City, CA, 22–34
2.
California Business and Professions Code, sec. 805
3.
California Civil Code, sec. 47 and 43.8
4.
California Business and Professions Code, sec. 2318
5.
Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 USC, sec. 11111
6.
Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986
7.
THE 1991 JOINT COMMISSION ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR HOSPITALS, sec. MS 1.2.3.1.5; MS 3.5.2.1.3; MS 3.5.2.1.4; MS 3.9.1.4; MS 5.4
8.
SpahnTE. Evaluating and Litigating Defamation Cases. March 1991, 8–11
