“Because Matthews was engaging in the representation of his clients when he made the statements, we conclude, as a matter of law, that he had a legitimate interest to uphold,” Judge Markle stated.
Armin Oskouei Defamation Lawsuit Against Surgeon : Reconsideration of Attorney Fees and Costs
The trial court has been instructed to consider Matthews’ request for attorney fees and litigation costs against Oskouei under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP law, codified as OCGA 9-11-11.1. This ruling brings the legal odyssey to a significant turning point.
Parallel with Common Attorney Communications
Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Christopher McFadden, during oral arguments, noted that Matthews’ statements resembled those commonly exchanged between opposing counsel. Judge Markle underscored this point, emphasizing that Matthews’ comments fell within the boundaries of comments made in the course of litigation.
Protection Under Georgia Law and Anti-SLAPP Statute
Matthews’ remarks were deemed privileged under Georgia law codified as OCGA 51-5-7, which protects comments of counsel made about the circumstances of a case in which they are involved and the conduct of relevant parties. Additionally, Matthews’ statements were safeguarded under the anti-SLAPP statute, which extends protection to speech related to issues under review by legislative, executive, or judicial bodies, or other official proceedings authorized by law.
Armin Oskouei Defamation Lawsuit Against Surgeon : A Surgeon’s Troubled Past
Armin Oskouei, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, is the sole owner of Ortho Sport & Spine Physicians LLC and the affiliated Orthopedic Surgery Center of Sandy Springs. The Georgia Department of Community Health previously barred the surgery center from conducting orthopedic surgeries, citing Oskouei’s lack of the required board certification.
Armin Oskouei Defamation Lawsuit Against Surgeon : A Surgeon’s Legal Battles
While the prohibition against Oskouei’s center was in effect, Matthews unearthed evidence that surgeries were still taking place. This discovery played a pivotal role in settlement discussions with opposing counsel, who were representing clients treated at Oskouei’s facility. Matthews referred to Oskouei as a “back alley” surgeon and as “bad news.”
Defamation Claims Rejected
Under the anti-SLAPP law, defamation claims can be swiftly dismissed if the challenged speech is protected, and the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success. The panel firmly stated that Oskouei failed to properly appeal the trial court’s finding that Matthews’ comments were protected.
Concluding Remarks
In a footnote, Judge Markle clarified that a defamation claim does not hold against an attorney expressing a legal opinion about a litigant’s claims and the associated parties’ liabilities. The panel also rejected Oskouei’s argument that Matthews’ comments were made in bad faith, as the cease-and-desist order targeted the doctor’s business, not him personally. There was no evidence that Matthews acted maliciously or with reckless disregard of the truth.
