We obtained a ruling from the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirming a defense verdict we obtained defending an attorney in a defamation case.

We obtained a ruling from the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirming a defense verdict we obtained defending an attorney in a defamation case. The attorney was sued by two physicians, who alleged he defamed them through letters written to the FDA regarding their performance of lasik surgery. The letters were also published on internet gripe sites maintained by the attorney's client, who had been rendered legally blind after undergoing lasik surgery performed by the plaintiffs. Before trial, we were able to convince the court that the plaintiffs should be classified as "limited purpose public figures" because they had extensively advertised their expertise in the field of lasik surgery through television, radio and internet outlets. As a result, the physicians had to prove that the attorney acted with malice, as opposed to negligence, and could not meet this burden at trial. On appeal, the physicians argued they should not be classified as "limited purpose public figures" merely because they advertised and that this was a dangerous precedent to set for physicians. The Superior Court disagreed and affirmed. It found that, given the extent of the physicians' advertising regarding lasik surgery, and the subject matter nexus between those advertisements and the attorney's alleged defamatory speech, the physicians were appropriately deemed "limited purpose public figures" and required to prove the attorney acted with malice at trial. The Superior Court then reviewed the trial record and affirmed the finding that the attorney did not act with actual malice in both writing to the FDA and providing the letters to his client.