Edalati v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. CA1/5

Filed 3/16/21 Edalati v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

NAZILA TAZANGI EDALATI, A156916 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Solano County v. Super. Ct. No. FCS044289) KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Nazila Tazangi Edalati D.D.S. appeals after judgment was entered in favor of defendants on her defamation and invasion of privacy suit. She contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because she established a triable issue of fact as to the common interest privilege’s application. (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c); undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.)1 We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND A. Defamation requires the publication of a statement of fact that is false, defamatory, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or causes

1Because multiple members of the Edalati family are involved, we will refer to them by their first names, for clarity.

1

special damage. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 (Taus).) Libel is a type of defamation based on written statements or other visual depictions. (§ 45.) The “common-interest privilege” provides a conditional privilege to a defendant who makes a statement to others on a matter of common interest if the statement is made without malice. (§ 47, subd. (c); Lundquist v. Reusser (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1193, 1196 (Lundquist).) B. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) has contracts with the federal government allowing it to provide prescription medication plans to Medicare patients. Kaiser is required to regularly review lists of providers excluded from writing prescriptions for Medicare members and to notify such providers’ Medicare patients that federal law prohibits using federal funds to cover the cost of any drugs they prescribe. The government’s list of excluded prescribers is maintained by the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services. In October 2013, Kaiser erroneously notified 38 of Nazila’s Medicare patients that she was on a list of excluded providers suspected of fraud. Kaiser’s letters stated that it “[could] no longer cover prescription medications . . . that are prescribed by [Nazila] . . . because . . . she has been excluded from participation in all federal health care programs.” Nazila complained to Kaiser in December 2013. After confirming Nazila was not an excluded provider, Kaiser sent retraction letters, the following month, to the same 38 patients. C. Nazila sued Kaiser, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Group, Inc. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Nazila alleged that Kaiser made the October 2013 publication knowing of its falsity