Gay v. William Hill Manor, Inc.

GARRITY, Judge. The Circuit Court for Talbot County (North, J.) granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict against Sue Ann Gay, the appellant in this case, as to defamation. Facts The appellant, Ms. Gay, had been employed as a nurse’s aide at William Hill Manor, Inc., a nursing home, from December 16, 1981, until May of 1983. William Hill Manor, Inc. was named as appellee in this case along with the following individuals: Mrs. Esther Russell, the Administrator; Mr. Rodney Spring, the Assistant Administrator; and Ms. Gloria Edmiston, the Director of Nursing.

On May 24, 1983, Dorothy Withey, who was also a nurse’s aide, reported to Ms. Edmiston that she had wit ⁵³ nessed a disturbing event. Ms. Withey revealed that on the evening of May 15th or 16th, she made patient rounds with Ms. Gay. When they entered Mrs. Ross’ room, Mrs. Ross was “hollering.” She then observed Ms. Gay take a pillow from under Mrs. Ross’ head and lay it across her face. As she held the pillow over Mrs. Ross’ face, Ms. Gay looked up at Ms. Withey and said, “You didn’t see that.” She then removed the pillow and placed it back under Mrs. Ross’ head.

Ms. Withey further related that she did not report the incident immediately because she was fearful. After Ms. Edmiston spoke with Ms. Withey, Ms. Edmiston reported the alleged incident to Mrs. Russell, the Administrator. As required by the nursing home’s policy, the alleged patient abuse was reported to Capt. Walter Chase of the local police department.

Mrs. Russell testified that Capt. Chase investigated the incident and recommended that Ms. Gay be fired and notified in writing that she was not to enter upon the premises again. Capt. Chase testified that he believed that he had sufficient information to charge Ms. Gay with a criminal offense, although no charges were ever brought.

On the following day, May 25, Ms. Edmiston requested that Ms. Gay report to her office. Upon Ms. Gay’s arrival at the nursing home, she was escorted by Ms. Edmiston to Mrs. Russell’s office. Mr. Spring was also present. The Assistant Administrator then advised Ms. Gay that he had been informed she had placed a pillow over Mrs. Ross’ face.

Although Ms. Gay asked the identity of her accuser, the staff refused to tell her. Ms. Gay was then given an employee report and told that her employment had been terminated. The employee report set forth the reasons for Ms. Gay’s dismissal: namely, physical mistreatment of a patient, excessive absenteeism and inciting disobedience to the rules and regulations of the facility. Ms. Gay was also given a letter at this time which advised her that she had been banned from the premises and that she would be “arrested for trespassing” if she were to come on the property. ⁵⁴ After the meeting, Ms. Gay was escorted to her locker by Mrs. Russell, who preceded her; Mr. Spring, who followed her; and Ms. Edmiston, who was on her right.

After emptying her locker, Ms. Gay was then escorted through the halls of the nursing home and to her car. There was testimony that indicated that a few residents and employees of the nursing home were in the rooms adjoining the hallway or in the hallway itself when Ms. Gay was being accompanied by her supervisors. Discussion of Law In determining whether to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial judge must assume the truth of all credible evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Stoskin v. Prensky, 256 Md. 707 , 262 A.2d 48 (1970); McSlarrow v. Walker, 56 Md.App. 151 , 467 A.2d 196 (1983), cert. denied, 299 Md. 137 , 472 A.2d 1000 (1984).

If the evidence presented does not allow reasonable minds to draw differing conclusions, then the question is one of law for the trial judge to decide. Montgomery Ward Co. v. McFarland, 21 Md.App. 501 , 319 A.2d 824 (1974). There are three elements which a plaintiff is required to show in order to establish a prima facie case of defamation: First, the alleged defamatory statement or action must expose a person to “public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule” and thus injure reputation. Second, the alleged defamatory publication must be communicated to a third person and that person must reasonably recognize the publication to be defamatory.

Third, damages must be proven, (citations omitted). Mareck v. Johns Hopkins University, 60 Md.App. 217, 223 , 482 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 302 Md. 288 , 487 A.2d 292 (1984). In essence, in order to prove that one’s reputation has been harmed, a person must show that the defamatory statement or action was published to a third party who must reasonably recognize its defamatory nature. ⁵⁵ The appellant relies upon General Motors Corporation v. Piskor, 277 Md. 165 , 352 A.2d 810 (1976), for the proposition that publication may be implied through certain conduct. In Piskor , the plaintiff was suspected of stealing inventory from the General Motors plant.

Piskor was accosted and detained by defendant security guards as he attempted to