Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
665 F.2d 305 (1981)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Beatrice Gilbert (plaintiff) was an anesthesiologist. Medical Economics Co. (defendant), a medical journal, published an article about the need for better oversight regulation of doctors who committed malpractice. It used Gilbert as an example and discussed in detail two malpractice cases that had been filed against her for injuries sustained by patients as a result of her actions during surgeries. It also discussed some of Gilbert’s personal problems, including psychiatric issues, and suggested a link between her personal problems and professional mistakes. The article included Gilbert’s name and photo. Gilbert sued Medical Economics for invasion of privacy. Gilbert did not dispute the accuracy of any of the facts in the article. She also made no claim that the general subject matter of the article was newsworthy. However, she claimed that her personal problems, her name, and her photograph were protected by her right to privacy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Medical Economics, holding that if the general content of an article is newsworthy, editors should be given the discretion to determine what details to include and how the article should be written and that the entire article was therefore protected by the First Amendment. Gilbert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.