Nellie S. Francis appealed the Superior Court's summary judgment in favor of Dr. James A. Gallo and West Bay Psychiatry Associations, Ltd. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the appeal without further briefing, affirming the lower court's decision. Francis, representing herself, failed to attend the show cause hearing and her subsequent motion to reschedule was deemed without merit. Initially, Francis filed a complaint in 2008 alleging medical malpractice and negligence, which was dismissed in 2009, leaving her slander claims intact. These slander allegations were based on statements made by Dr. Gallo during a deposition in 2004 and testimony in 2007 regarding her wrongful termination. The defendants argued that the slander claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that Dr. Gallo was protected by testimonial privilege. The motion for summary judgment was granted on these grounds, with final judgment entered in October 2010. Francis's appeal was reviewed de novo, applying the same standards as the motion justice.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing facts favorably to the nonmoving party, finds no material fact disputes, allowing the moving party to be granted judgment as a matter of law. In this case, the court upheld the motion justice's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Ms. Francis’s slander claim based on Dr. Gallo’s WCC deposition was barred by the statute of limitations, which mandates that such claims must be filed within one year of the statements. Dr. Gallo testified on June 29, 2004, but Ms. Francis waited over four years to file her claim, rendering it time-barred. Furthermore, Dr. Gallo's statements, made during the WCC deposition and RIDE testimony, were non-actionable due to testimonial privilege, which protects witnesses from civil liability for statements made in judicial proceedings. This privilege applies not only to traditional litigation but also to quasi-judicial proceedings, including those conducted by administrative bodies. The court confirmed that Dr. Gallo’s testimony was made in a judicial context, specifically within the WCC, which operates similarly to a court. Therefore, his deposition testimony cannot serve as a basis for a slander claim, as it is protected under the established testimonial privilege.
Ms. Francis's slander claim against Dr. Gallo, stemming from his testimony at a RIDE hearing, is dismissed based on established legal principles. RIDE hearing officers engage in official functions akin to trial judges, rendering Dr. Gallo's testimony part of a judicial proceeding. This testimony is protected under the testimonial privilege, designed to encourage open communication from witnesses in civil and criminal cases. Dr. Gallo's statements, made in response to questions during the proceedings, cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court's summary judgment favoring the defendants, noting the relevance of Dr. Gallo's testimony to the wrongful termination hearing, particularly in countering Ms. Francis's claim of being medically excused from work. The case record may be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
