Lippincott v. Whisenhunt
No 13-0926
Case Summary written by Jeryn Crabb, Staff Member.
Warren Whisenhunt, a registered nurse anesthetist, filed suit against Lippincott and Parks for defamation, tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations, and conspiracy to interfere with business relations. Whisenhunt alleged that Lippincott and Parks made disparaging comments in emails about him including that Whisenhunt represented himself to be a doctor, endangered patients for his own financial gain, and sexually harassed employees. Lippincott and Parks sought to dismiss the claims based on the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
Issue: Does the scope of the Texas Citizens Participation Act allow a defendant to dismiss a claim involving the exercise of the right to free speech upon a showing that the communication was made in connection to a public form?
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, concluding that Whisenhunt met the minimum threshold to proceed with the defamation claim but failed to provide sufficient evidence to proceed with the other claim. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the Act does not apply to private communications and therefore, was inapplicable to the case.
In order to give effect to the Legislative intent of the statute, the Court looked to the statute’s plain language. The Court determined that the right to free speech in the Texas Citizens Participation Act requires that (1) the exercise be made in a communication, and (2) the communication be made in connection with a matter of public concern. The plain language in the statute does not require the form of communication to be public. The emails allege a health care professional’s misconduct while providing medical services, which have previously been determined to be a matter of public concern. The private emails concern a public subject; therefore, the statute protects the speech. The Court determined that under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a defendant may move to dismiss a claim involving the exercise of the right to free speech upon showing that the communication was made in connection to a matter of public concern. The Court’s interpretation of the plain language of the statute limits its scope to communications involving a public subject—not communications in public form. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether White met the prima facie burden that the Act requires.