AUSTIN – On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a $6.3 million award for a physician who sued his former employer for allegedly defaming him.
Cardiologist Miguel A. Gomez III, M.D. sued Memorial Hermann Health System over allegations of business disparagement, defamation, restraint of trade, and tortious interference with prospective business relations.
Gomez, a pioneering cardiovascular surgeon, alleged that Memorial Hermann engaged in a retaliatory “whisper campaign” against him after leaving the hospital for a new rival.
At trial, the jury found no illegal antitrust conspiracy or tortious interference with business relations on the part of Memorial Hermann, but did find for Gomez on the defamation and business disparagement claims, awarding damages for loss of reputation, mental anguish, lost profits, and exemplary damages.
Court records show the trial court’s final judgment awarded Gomez more than $6.3 million in total, which a court of appeals affirmed.
According to the high court’s opinion, the hospital’s argument that no evidence supports the jury’s defamation and disparagement findings turns on how a reasonable juror would interpret the charge that was given.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the plain text of the charge must be given its commonsense meaning in the context of the case.
“By rejecting the broadly framed antitrust claims, the jury drastically limited the scope of this long-running dispute to two quoted statements,” the opinion states. “One statement was not published. The other did not cause any damages. The jury charge asked about these statements—not an amorphous ‘whisper campaign’ that the statements supposedly ‘represented.’
“Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render a take-nothing judgment for Memorial Hermann.”
Case No. 19-0872