Grove v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

A.M. Kelly Grove, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, BabyNet, Debra M. McCoy, in both her official
and individual capacities, and Office of South Carolina
First Steps to School Readiness, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2011-195626

Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-322
Heard December 12, 2012 – Filed July 17, 2013

AFFIRMED

Seth Warren Whitaker, Brian C Duffy, and J. Rutledge
Young, III, all of Duffy & Young, LLC, of Charleston,
for Appellant.

Alissa Robyn Collins and James A. Stuckey, Jr., both of
Stuckey Law Offices, LLC, of Charleston, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: A.M. Kelly Grove appeals the order of the trial court granting
Debra M. McCoy, Ph.D., judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Grove's
defamation claim. In addition, Grove appeals the trial court's granting of partial
summary judgment and a directed verdict to the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), BabyNet, and McCoy, both
individually and in her official capacity, on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

(1) As to Grove's defamation claim: Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm
Credit, 334 S.C. 469, 484, 514 S.E.2d 126, 134 (1999) (stating that under the
defense of a conditional or qualified privilege "one who publishes defamatory
matter concerning another is not liable for the publication if (1) the matter is
published upon an occasion that makes it conditionally privileged, and (2) the
privilege is not abused"); Fountain v. First Reliance Bank, 398 S.C. 434, 444, 730
S.E.2d 305, 310 (2012) ("An abuse of the privilege occurs in one of two situations:
(1) a statement made in good faith that goes beyond the scope of what is
reasonable under the duties and interests involved or (2) a statement made in
reckless disregard of the victim's rights."); Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140,
149, 485 S.E.2d 903, 908 (1997) (stating verdicts may not be permitted to rest
upon surmise, conjecture, or speculation); Shealy v. Doe, 370 S.C. 194, 204, 634
S.E.2d 45, 50 (Ct. App. 2006) ("For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to
warrant the finding of a fact, the circumstances must lead to the conclusion with
reasonable certainty and must have sufficient probative value to constitute the basis
for a legal inference, not for mere speculation").

(2) As to Grove's § 1983 claim: Sloan v. S. Carolina Bd. of Physical Therapy
Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452, 483, 636 S.E.2d 598, 614-15 (2006) ("The right to hold
specific employment and the right to follow a chosen profession free from
unreasonable governmental interference come within the liberty and property
interests protected by the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment]. The
liberty interest at stake is the individual's freedom to practice his or her chosen
profession; the property interest is the specific employment.") (alteration in
original); Jackson v. Long, 102 F.3d 722, 730 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating defamation
alone does not constitute a constitutional deprivation but rather "the unjustified
state action must so seriously damage the plaintiff's reputation and standing in his
community as to foreclose his freedom to take advantage of other employment
opportunities"); Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 308
(4th Cir. 2006) (stating the type of communication that gives rise to a protected
liberty interest implies "the existence of serious character defects such as
dishonesty or immorality" as distinguished from statements that simply allege
"incompetence"); id. at 312 (stating that in order to invoke due process protections,
a charge of a serious character defect must be publicly disclosed); Hanahan v.
Simpson, 326 S.C. at 149, 485 S.E.2d at 908 (stating verdicts may not be permitted
to rest upon surmise, conjecture or speculation).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.