Meyers v. Levinson, No. 05-2036 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2036 PAUL J. MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL J. LEVINSON, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-9-JBF-JEB) Argued: May 24, 2006 Decided: June 21, 2006 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Kadar, Cranbury, New Jersey, for Appellant. Robert Lee Harris, Jr., LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dr. Paul Meyers filed this diversity action against Dr. Carl Levinson alleging defamation. Specifically, Dr. Meyers contends that Dr. Levinson is liable for republication of a peer review report that Dr. Levinson authored for Dr. Meyers Riverside Regional Medical Center ( Riverside ). employer, In a thorough opinion, the district court granted Dr. Levinson s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the dissemination of the report to Riverside s Fair Hearings Board did not create a new cause of action under the single publication rule and, therefore, was timebarred under Virginia law. (4th Cir. 1998) distributions individuals (noting See Semida v. Rice, 863 F.2d 1156, 1161 that of a document with a direct substantially within interest the in same the contemporaneous organization matter should to be considered part of an aggregate communication for purposes of applying the single publication rule ). The district court further determined that the distribution of the report to Mary Immaculate Hospital was not authorized by Dr. Levinson, nor was it the natural and probable result of Dr. Levinson s action. See Weaver v. Beneficial Finance Co., 98 S.E.2d 687, 692 (Va. 1957) (stating that an original defamer is liable for republications that are the natural and probable result of the defamer s actions). Meyers appeals both of these determinations. 2 Dr. Having reviewed, de novo, the parties briefs and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court. See Meyers v. Levinson, No. 4:02-cv-00009 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2005). AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
