## Facts

- Reginald V. Troxler worked as a mental health worker at a psychiatric hospital operated by Charter Mandala Center, Inc. and related corporate entities.
- A minor female patient alleged that she had sexual relations with Troxler while he worked at the hospital.
- A counselor/therapist reported the allegation to hospital management, including supervisory and administrative personnel.
- The allegation was communicated within the hospital to personnel with responsibility for supervision, investigation, or patient protection, and was reported to appropriate outside authorities responsible for child protection.
- Troxler denied the allegation and sued, alleging the accusation was false, was communicated maliciously, and was disseminated beyond those who needed to know, causing reputational and emotional harm.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on Troxler’s slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the hospital employees’ communications about the patient’s accusation were made on a qualifiedly privileged occasion, and, if so, whether Troxler produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that the privilege was abused through actual malice or excessive publication.
2. Whether defendants’ handling and communication of the accusation could, as a matter of law, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support an IIED claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on both claims.
- The court held the communications occurred on a qualifiedly privileged occasion because they were made in the discharge of duties concerning patient safety, internal administration, investigation, and required reporting.
- The court held Troxler failed to forecast evidence that defendants abused the privilege by actual malice or excessive publication.
- The court held the conduct alleged did not meet the “extreme and outrageous” threshold required for IIED.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- A qualified privilege protects good-faith communications made on a proper occasion to persons with a corresponding interest or duty; the plaintiff must show abuse of the privilege (including actual malice or publication beyond those with a legitimate interest).
- Personal animus or conclusory assertions, without specific evidence supporting actual malice or improper dissemination, do not defeat summary judgment where qualified privilege applies.
- IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency; internal investigation and reporting of serious allegations in a hospital setting, undertaken for protective and administrative purposes, does not satisfy this element as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that reporting and investigating a minor patient’s allegation of staff sexual misconduct within the hospital chain of responsibility and to appropriate authorities was qualifiedly privileged and was not shown to be maliciously or excessively published, and that the same conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough to support an IIED claim; summary judgment for defendants was affirmed.


Troxler v. Charter Mandala Ctr., Inc., 365 S.E.2d 665 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)