## Facts

- Dr. Steven R. Graboff, an orthopaedic surgeon and member of AAOS, served as an expert in a malpractice case involving another AAOS member, Dr. Menachem Meller.
- Meller filed an AAOS grievance alleging Graboff’s report and testimony were inaccurate and violated AAOS expert-witness standards.
- After internal proceedings, AAOS concluded Graboff violated its Standards of Professionalism and suspended his membership for two years.
- AAOS published a description of the disciplinary proceedings in its newsletter, *AAOS Now*.
- Graboff alleged the newsletter’s selective presentation created a misleading implication that he testified falsely.
- Graboff sued AAOS in federal court for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy based on the newsletter publication.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury can reasonably find no defamation (no false statements) yet find false-light invasion of privacy from the same publication.
2. Whether allegedly inconsistent special interrogatory answers required judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the order denying AAOS’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
- The court held the jury’s findings were legally reconcilable: the absence of literally false statements defeating defamation did not preclude a finding that the publication created a false and highly offensive overall impression for false-light liability.
- The $196,000 verdict on the false-light claim was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, defamation and false-light invasion of privacy are distinct torts with different falsity concepts: defamation focuses on falsity of specific statements, while false light can turn on a misleading overall impression.
- A publication may be actionable in false light even if its individual statements are substantially true, where selective emphasis or omission creates a materially misleading implication that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- When a case is submitted on special interrogatories, courts must uphold the verdict if there is any reasonable view that reconciles the answers; apparent inconsistency does not warrant setting aside the verdict if the findings can be harmonized.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for false-light invasion of privacy based on a publication that a jury found contained no defamatory false statements, reasoning that technically accurate reporting can still create an actionable misleading impression and that special interrogatory findings must be reconciled where reasonably possible.


Graboff v. Colleran Firm, 744 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2014)