text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES HORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
    First District (2nd Division)
    No. 1—91—2721
    Opinion filed May 18, 1993.
    Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Kim L. Sorrells, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
    Jack O’Malley, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Susan Schierl, and Leslie German, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE SCARIANO

delivered the opinion of the court:

On January 29, 1987, defendant, his mother Ruby Horne, his sister Vivian Jackson, and Vivian’s daughter Tania Jackson were all living together at 7449 South Ingleside in the City of Chicago. At approximately 2:30 a.m that morning, Vivian was awakened by her mother, who was complaining that defendant was pestering her to give him some cigarettes. Vivian told Ruby to go back to sleep and lock her bedroom door. About an hour and a half later, however, Vivian once again was awakened by her mother’s beckoning. When she proceeded into Ruby’s room to investigate, she saw Ruby lying on the floor with a stab wound in her back and defendant standing next to her with a butcher knife in his hand. Vivian asked defendant what had happened, but he said nothing and quickly left the room. Eventually, defendant dressed and left the house, telling Vivian that she should “take care of mama.” In the meantime, Vivian had Tania call the police, who transported Ruby by ambulance to Bernard Mitchell Hospital, where she died later that morning from the stab wound.

After stabbing his mother, defendant walked to the home of Jack Brown, a neighbor and friend of the family. When defendant arrived, Brown was conversing on the telephone with defendant’s brother, Douglas Horne, who informed him of the stabbing. When Brown asked defendant about what had happened, defendant did not respond to his questions. Brown later went to the hospital without defendant where he was prevailed upon by police officers to bring defendant to the hospital. Brown eventually coaxed defendant into accompanying him to the hospital.

At about 9:30 a.m., defendant was taken into custody at the hospital by Chicago police officers Armando Calan, Joseph Sfehlik and John McMurray. Officer Sfehlik read defendant his Miranda rights, and defendant responded “yes” when asked if he understood each right. Defendant was later transported to the 21st police district, where Officer McMurray asked him several follow-up questions in order to complete his arrest report. Defendant was also questioned after being read his Miranda rights by Detectives O’Leary and Redmond.

Defendant was then interviewed by Assistant State’s Attorneys Lori Levin and David Cuomo, and after Levin advised defendant who she was and again read to him his Miranda rights, he indicated that he wanted to talk to her about his mother’s death. Levin reduced defendant’s statement to writing, read it back to him, and had defendant sign it and initial each page. In that statement, defendant related that he awoke in the middle of the night and wanted a cigarette. When he went to his mother’s bedroom and obtained one, however, she told him that he smoked too much and took it away from him. While he was “fumin [sic]” with her, he asked her if he could at least smoke one half of a cigarette. At that point, Ruby yelled for Vivian and threatened to call the police. Defendant stepped on the phone to prevent her from making the call, and while doing so, he noticed a knife on the floor. He then saw his mother reach for the knife, so he grabbed it away from her, but it somehow fell to the ground; Ruby fell on top of it and rolled around. Vivian then arrived, and defendant, without explaining how it got into his hand, took the knife in the kitchen, wiped it off, and placed it in the drawer where it belonged. He then left the house in order to “get his head together.”

Defendant was indicted for two counts of murder and one count of armed violence, but on May 15, 1987, Matthew S. Marcos, M.D., a staff psychiatrist at the Psychiatric Institute of the circuit court of Cook County, determined that defendant was unfit to stand trial. Accordingly, he was placed in the custody of the Illinois Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. Subsequently, on August 27, 1987, and February 25, 1988, defendant was found to be fit for trial.

Defendant raised the defense of insanity, and the following evidence on that issue was adduced at trial. Vivian, who was called by the State, testified that defendant was hospitalized in 1987 for psychiatric problems which would often include altercations with their mother. She stated that defendant was supposed to take medication, and when he would do so, he remained quiet and generally stayed in his room; but because he did not think he was ill, defendant would often refuse to take his medicine. When that occurred, she testified, defendant would deteriorate and manifest the following symptoms: (1) he would consistently bother others in the house for cigarettes; (2) he would watch television intently even though it was not turned on; (3) he would collect water and his urine in bottles in preparation for a lawsuit charging the city with contaminating the water; and (4) he would bathe up to four times a day. Vivian related, however, that defendant was staying in his room and acting as if he were taking his medicine the week prior to the homicide, and her daughter Tania corroborated this statement.

Officer McMurray testified that when he interviewed defendant, he understood the questions, gave responsive answers thereto, was cooperative, and exhibited no unusual behavior.

After the State rested, defendant offered the expert testimony of Glenn Prentice, M.D., a psychiatrist in private practice who was retained by defendant to evaluate him on May 7, 1988. Dr. Prentice based his evaluation on interviews with defendant’s family, the police reports related to this case, and defendant’s mental health records regarding his previous hospitalizations; he did not, however, ask defendant any detailed questions about the stabbing. He testified on direct examination that defendant had been suffering from schizophrenia, disorganized type, since at least December 1978, the date of his first hospitalization. Dr. Prentice opined that because of his illness, defendant was unable at the time of the homicide to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, although he did admit that defendant knew it was wrong to murder someone. He based his opinion that defendant was insane at the time of the offense on his interview with defendant, defendant’s history of severe mental illness which included assaultive behavior, his writing of religious letters full of obscenities around the time of the incident, and his relation of a story to his brother the day before the murder about selling a building for $25,000. Dr. Prentice conceded on cross-examination, however, that although defendant’s actions subsequent to the crime did not necessarily mean that he was sane, defendant’s wiping off of the knife and fleeing the scene of the crime were “goal-directed.” He also testified that he was unaware that defendant was acting as if he were taking his medication the week prior to the homicide.

Defendant next called to the stand Warner Teteur, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist with extensive experience in evaluating persons charged with crimes, for both the State and the accused, in order to determine their sanity. Dr. Teteur examined defendant on October 7, 1987, and on April 17, 1990. In evaluating defendant, Dr. Teteur relied on those interviews, defendant’s hospital records, the police reports, and his notes of interviews with defendant’s family and friends. He opined that defendant had been suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type — as opposed to disorganized type, a significantly more serious disorder — since at least December of 1978. He concluded that defendant was insane at the time of the offense because his illness prevented him from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Teteur based his opinion primarily on defendant’s lengthy history of serious illness, including assaultive behavior against his mother, as well as his recent delusion of grandeur regarding the sale of property. He did admit, however, that defendant’s acts of wiping off the knife, fleeing from the scene, and offering an exculpatory story evidenced his ability to understand the criminality of his acts.

Defendant next presented the testimony of defendant’s neighbor Jack Brown, who stated that defendant had a history of bizarre behavior, including the propensity to talk to himself and to abuse others verbally. Finally, defendant’s brother related that defendant had told him the day before the murder that he had just sold a building for $25,000 and was looking for the check which constituted the proceeds therefrom. He also stated that defendant told him on the telephone at Brown’s house on the morning of the incident that the stabbing was an accident.

In rebuttal, the State called Michael Rabin, a senior staff psychologist for the Psychiatric Institute of the circuit court of Cook County who had testified extensively in previous criminal proceedings on behalf of both the State and defense. He examined defendant on May 7, 1987, and on September 20, 1988, and in evaluating defendant, he relied on those examinations, defendant’s hospital records, the police reports, and the opinions of Dr. Prentice and Dr. Teteur. He opined that although defendant was suffering from a condition called “schizo-affective disorder,” that illness did not prevent him from either appreciating the criminality of his conduct or from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Rabin thought that defendant could understand the criminality of his acts because he washed the murder weapon, left the scene of the crime, and provided the police with an exculpatory story. He further opined that defendant was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law because he changed his story from the one he gave during the first interview, wherein he stated the stabbing was an accident, to that given in the second one, wherein he told Dr. Rabin that he was receiving fumes from the telephone which made him stab his mother, thus indicating to Dr. Rabin that defendant had fabricated the second story to coincide with his insanity defense. Dr. Rabin also felt that the “telephone fumes” explanation was an untruth because he made no mention of it to the arresting police officers.

Dr. Rabin also explained why he disagreed with the opinions of defendant’s experts. First, he felt that Dr. Prentice’s opinion was flawed because he failed to question defendant regarding the circumstances of the homicide. He also questioned Dr. Teteur’s conclusion that defendant was insane for the reason that he provided no explanation as to how defendant’s mental illness prevented him from conforming his conduct at the time of the offense to the law.

The State next presented the testimony of Albert Stipes, M.D., who was also on the staff of the Psychiatric Institute of the circuit court of Cook County and who had experience similar to that of Dr. Rabin. Dr. Stipes examined defendant on February 24, 1988, and September 20, 1988. In evaluating defendant, Dr. Stipes used those interviews, defendant’s hospital records, his statement to the police, and Dr. Teteur’s report. He opined that although defendant was suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type, at the time of the incident, that illness did not prevent him from understanding the criminality of his acts or from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. His reasons for these conclusions were identical to those of Dr. Rabin, i.e., defendant’s attempt to cover up the crime and his apparent fabrication of the “telephone fumes” story. He also concurred with Dr. Rabin’s criticisms of defendant’s experts, adding that Dr. Prentice’s opinion was incredible because defendant certainly did not have schizophrenia, disorganized type.

Finally, the State presented the testimony of Assistant State’s Attorney Cuomo, who stated that although defendant was a bit nervous during questioning by Assistant State’s Attorney Levin, he was responsive and coherent throughout the session. Cuomo also related that he had a brief conversation with defendant, wherein the two discussed who should have been the starting quarterback (Mike Tomczak or Doug Flutie) for the Chicago Bears in their recent playoff loss to the Washington Redskins.

The trial court found defendant guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), and after denying defendant’s post-trial motion and hearing argument in aggravation and mitigation, sentenced him to a term of 20 years in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s finding that he was GBMI, essentially arguing that the trial court erred when it rejected his expert witnesses’ testimony that he was insane at the time of the offense.

“A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 6—2(a); People v. Johnson (1991), 146 Ill. 2d 109, 128, 585 N.E.2d 78, 86.) The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is legally insane. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 6—2(e); Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d at 128, 585 N.E.2d at 86.

Our legislature has also promulgated an alternative verdict of GBMI where a defendant has unsuccessfully raised the defense of insanity (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 6—2(c); Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d at 131, 585 N.E.2d at 88), and that statutory provision states that “[a] person who, at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct and may be found [GBMI].” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 6 — 2(c).) Under the statute in existence at the time defendant committed the offense in question, the State, in order to obtain a GBMI verdict, was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant: (1) was guilty of the offense charged; (2) was mentally ill at the time of the commission of the offense; and (3) was not legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 115 — 3(c); People v. Scott (1992), 148 Ill. 2d 479, 534, 594 N.E.2d 217, 239.

The issue of whether the trial court properly found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was GBMI at the time of the offense is a question of fact; therefore, the fact finder’s resolution of that issue will not be overturned unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Johnson, 146 Ill. 2d at 128-29, 585 N.E.2d at 86; People v. Gilyard (1992), 237 Ill. App. 3d 8, 24, 602 N.E.2d 1335, 1346, appeal denied (1993), 148 Ill. 2d 647.) It is within the province of the trier of fact to evaluate the testimony of the psychiatric expert witnesses and to resolve any discrepancies therein. (People v. Kluxdal (1991), 225 Ill. App. 3d 217, 224, 586 N.E.2d 701, 707, appeal denied (1992), 144 Ill. 2d 639, 591 N.E.2d 27; People v. Bradley (1991), 220 Ill. App. 3d 890, 903, 581 N.E.2d 310, 319, appeal denied (1992), 143 Ill. 2d 641, 587 N.E.2d 1018.) Expert testimony is to be judged by the same rules of weight and credibility which are applied to evidence offered through other witnesses. (People v. Wilbur (1992), 226 Ill. App. 3d 733, 736, 589 N.E.2d 1143, 1145, appeal denied (1992), 145 Ill. 2d 643, 596 N.E.2d 636.) Moreover, the fact finder may disregard all expert testimony and rely solely on evidence presented by lay witnesses. People v. Camden (1991), 219 Ill. App. 3d 124, 134, 578 N.E.2d 1211, 1219, appeal denied (1992), 143 Ill. 2d 641, 587 N.E.2d 1018; People v. Reed (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 575, 583, 568 N.E.2d 334, 338.

In the case sub judice, we find that there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not insane at the time of the offense, thus entitling the prosecution to a GBMI finding. First, the trial court accepted the testimony of the State’s doctors who opined that although defendant was mentally ill at the time of the homicide, that illness did not prevent him from appreciating the criminality of his conduct or from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. The court’s decision to believe the State’s experts was incontestably reasonable, since they persuasively advanced reasons to demonstrate that defendant appreciated the criminality of his conduct as shown by his actions subsequent to the crime (see People v. Bouchard (1989), 180 Ill. App. 3d 26, 34, 535 N.E.2d 1001, 1006 (covering up of crime after commission evidence of sanity); People v. Spires (1989), 182 Ill. App. 3d 176, 183, 537 N.E.2d 1010, 1014 (attempt to flee scene of the crime evidence of sanity)); and also since the State’s doctors opined that defendant was able to conform his conduct to the parameters of the law because they felt that he fabricated his “telephone fumes” story in order to bolster his insanity defense. See Kluxdal, 225 Ill. App. 3d at 225, 586 N.E.2d at 707 (post-offense conduct which lays groundwork for insanity defense evidence of sanity).

Furthermore, the trial court made clear that it relied more heavily on the testimony of the lay witnesses who observed defendant. First, the court believed, based on the testimony of Vivian and Tania, that defendant was taking his medicine and thus controlling his illness during the week immediately prior to the homicide. (See People v. Williams (1990), 201 Ill. App. 3d 207, 220, 558 N.E.2d 1258, 1266 (absence of irrational conduct prior to the offense evidence of sanity).) The court was also persuaded by the testimony of the police officers and others, especially Assistant State’s Attorney Cuomo, who not only observed defendant shortly after the incident and testified that he was acting rationally and coherently, but also had a discussion with defendant regarding the Chicago Bears quarterback controversy. See Williams, 201 Ill. App. 3d at 220, 558 N.E.2d at 1266 (coherence while conversing with police officers and others shortly after the incident evidence of sanity).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that defendant was GBMI, the State having established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did have a mental illness, but was not legally insane at the time of the offense.

Affirmed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and HARTMAN, J., concur.

       Because of the obvious inconsistency in the statutory scheme which required a defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense in order to be entitled to an insanity finding, while simultaneously requiring the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not insane at the time of the offense before it can obtain a GBMI finding (see People v. Fierer (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 176, 529 N.E.2d 972), the General Assembly amended section 115 — 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, effective January 1, 1990, in order to alleviate altogether the State’s burden of proof on the issue of insanity. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 115—3(c)(3).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE GIANNIS

license: Public Domain

text:
    FRANK WICKER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE TOWN OF CICERO MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellants.
    First District (6th Division)
    No. 1—93—1218
    Opinion filed May 21, 1993.
    Odelson & Sterk, Ltd., of Evergreen Park (Burton S. Odelson, Mathias W. Delort, and Keri-Lyn J. Krafthefer, of counsel), and David A. Epstein and Gary A. Weintraub, both of Chicago, for appellants.
    Judith B. Petrucci, of Lyons, for appellee.
   JUSTICE GIANNIS

delivered the opinion of the court:

In February, 1993, candidate Frank Wicker (petitioner) filed nominating papers with the clerk of the Town of Cicero for the office of town president. In order to be placed on the ballot-for the April 20, 1993, election, petitioner needed nominating petitions containing the valid signatures of 532 registered voters. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 46, par. 10—3.) Petitioner filed a total of 852 signatures, of which 273 were rejected by the office of the county clerk. This left petitioner with a total of 579 signatures, 47 more signatures than necessary for him to be placed on the ballot.

Thereafter, respondent Mark S. Moro filed objections with the Town of Cicero Municipal Electoral Board (the Board). Moro alleged that many of the remaining 579 signatures were invalid. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 46, par. 10—8.) After hearing, the Board entered its decision on the matter March 18, 1993. It found that 92 of the 579 signatures tendered by petitioner should be invalidated, leaving petitioner with only 487 signatures. Petitioner was therefore 45 signatures below the number necessary to place him on the April 20 ballot.

Petitioner appealed the Board’s decision to the circuit court which, after hearing, found that the Board’s action with regard to 50 signatures was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 46, par. 10 — 10.1.) The court, in an order dated April 7, 1993, restored these signatures, giving petitioner a total of 537 signatures — just five signatures more than necessary to place him on the ballot.

Moro and the Board thereafter brought an emergency appeal seeking to overturn the trial court’s April 7 order. On April 15, 1993, we issued a summary order reversing the circuit court’s order and reinstating the decision of the Board. In addition, on April 19, 1993, we denied petitioner’s petition for rehearing. Petitioner was thereafter struck from the ballot. We explain our April 15,1993, order here.

The Board argued that the circuit court’s decision to reinstate 50 signatures should have been reversed. Because petitioner secured only five signatures more than necessary to keep him on the ballot, however, we need only address one of the issues raised by the Board, specifically, whether it was error for the circuit court to reverse the Board’s finding that Sharon Arteaga had not personally circulated petition sheet number 34. Because we do not believe the Board abused its discretion on this single factual issue, we reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the Board’s initial decision striking petitioner from the ballot.

The Election Code requires that a registered voter of the political division for which the candidate is nominated sign a statement on each nominating petition indicating that the signatures on the petition were signed in her presence. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 46, par. 10—4.) Petition sheet number 34 contained the signature of Carl Brave and had been certified by circulator Sharon Arteaga.

The Board first heard the testimony of Carl Brave. Brave testified that he was tending bar at the Colonial Inn located on West Cermak Road on what he remembered to be a Tuesday. That day, two men came into his bar and solicited signatures from several of the customers. Brave described one of the men as a “pretty good size guy, wore glasses,” and the other as a man wearing “a suit necktie and a topcoat.” Brave stated that he and six to eight of the patrons in the bar signed the petition. On cross-examination Brave repeatedly insisted that he had not discussed the nominating petitions with anyone before testifying at the hearing. Brave admitted that he was the owner of the bar and that the bar’s liquor license was in his wife’s name. He also stated that he was served his subpoena to testify before the Board at the bar, although nominating petition number 34 indicated only his home address.

Sharon Arteaga testified in support of the signatures on nominating petition 34. Arteaga testified that she and her husband took nominating petitions to various bars on Cermak Road but that only she asked people to sign the petitions. She also testified that she was then pregnant, wore an overcoat, kept her hair short, often did not wear earrings and had, in the past, been mistaken for a man.

In its decision the Board stated the following:

“FINDINGS AS TO CIRCULATOR SHARON L. ARTEAGA
The Board finds witness Carl Brave’s testimony to be very credible, honest and believable. The Board further finds that two men circulated Sheet 34 in a bar; that Mr. Brave testified that seven or eight other people in the bar signed the sheet and that no female was present. Counsel for the candidate attempted to convince the Board that Mrs. Arteaga could have been mistaken for a male which the board finds totally incredible after viewing Mrs. Arteaga (who testified she is currently 8Vb months pregnant and was 6V2 to 7 months pregnant at the time of circulation), who is an attractive blond with no male facial or body characteristics.
Further, Mrs. Arteaga could not remember any of the bars she was allegedly in while purporting to circulate sheets 34, 35, 39 and 46, was hesitant, unsure and unconvincing in her testimony. The Board specifically finds her testimony not credible or believable based on the contradicting statements of Carl Brave, her demeanor, and her answers to questions of both Objector and Candidates counsel.” (Emphasis in original.)

In considering the same evidence on appeal, the trial court stated:

“This court finds that the determination of the Board with regard to Carl Brave versus Sharon Arteaga is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
I find that Carl Brave was substantially impeached in his testimony and that his testimony was not subject to reasonable belief by the Board.
I realize that the Court was reading nothing but a cold record, but I read the record and came to a different conclusion from that argued by counsel.
It seemed to me that the most direct testimony, the most unequivocal testimony, was that of Sharon Arteaga, and that Mr. Brave’s testimony was unsure, was — lacked responsiveness, and it seemed to me that his identification testimony was vague, and I believe in the circumstances, unreliable and doubtful.
* * *
But taking into account what I consider [Carl Brave’s] interest, a financial interest in this matter, his being a [liquor] licensee of the very township in which this election is being held, the fact that they are — that there are members of that Board who hold a financial power over him, renders, to my judgment, his testimony to serious question, that it is impeached, and in fact, I believe that in the circumstances, when he says he talked to no one [about receiving a subpoena or testifying], it goes beyond credulity, in this Court’s view.
The fact that he was the sole person and owner of an establishment, the spouse of a licensee of the Board, I believe goes beyond a reasonable adoption of that testimony by a fair-minded Board.”

In reviewing the Board’s findings of fact, we, like the trial court, must accord the Board’s finding significant deference. (Williams v. Butler (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 532, 341 N.E.2d 394.) The findings of the Board are prima facie true, and there need only be some competent evidence in the record sufficient to support its finding. (See Williams, 35 Ill. App. 3d at 538, 341 N.E.2d at 399.) Review of electoral board decisions is not intended to provide a de novo hearing, but instead, “merely to provide a remedy against arbitrary or unsupported decisions.” Williams, 35 Ill. App. 3d at 538, 341 N.E.2d at 398.

Based upon a review of the record, we conclude that the findings of the Board were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Indeed, only the Board had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the Board was clearly in the best position to judge the credibility of Arteaga and Brave. While we do not necessarily disagree with the trial court’s observations regarding the testimony of Arteaga and Brave, we too have read the record and conclude that the Board was within its discretion in accepting Brave’s version of the events over Arteaga’s. When six names are eliminated, there are not sufficient signatures for petitioner to have his name appear on the ballot.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court with directions to enter a judgment affirming the decision of the Board.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

McNAMARA, P.J., and EGAN, J., concur.

       Because petitioner has only five signatures more than necessary to keep him on the ballot, and because the parties appear to agree that six to eight signatures were solicited at the Colonial Inn over Ms. Arteaga’s certification, we need not address the question of whether the Board, in invalidating all signatures certified by Arteaga, misapplied the court’s decision in Huskey v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the Village of Oak Lawn (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 201, 509 N.E.2d 555. In addition, we note that petitioner has failed to argue that Huskey should be distinguished.


author: JUSTICE STOUDER

text:
    THERESA T. BAILEY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Midland-Ross Corporation, Appellee).
    First District (Industrial Commission Division)
    No. 1—92—1441WC
    Opinion filed May 21, 1993.

      Cronin & Peters, of Chicago, for appellant.
    Roddy, Power, Leahy, Guill, Zima & Gifford, Ltd., of Chicago (Joseph E. Detuno and Alan D. Kalinoski, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE STOUDER

delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant, Therese T. Bailey (the claimant), filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.), contending her husband, William J. Bailey (the decedent), suffered fatal injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellee, the Midland-Ross Corporation (the employer). Following a series of hearings, the arbitrator denied compensation. On review, the Industrial Commission (Commission) affirmed and circuit court confirmed. The claimant now appeals to this court.

The claimant testified her husband, the decedent, began working for the employer in June of 1984. The decedent worked in the surface combustion division of Midland-Ross. The employer is involved in the manufacture and installation of industrial furnaces. The decedent’s first work assignment was at the Union Oil plant in Lemont, Illinois, as a construction supervisor. The claimant testified the decedent was transferred to Toledo, Ohio, in December of 1984, after being promoted to the title of project engineer. Subsequently, he was sent to Structural Metals, Inc. (SMI), in Sequin, Texas.

While in Texas, the employer paid for the decedent’s lodging and all of his expenses, including a rental car. The decedent was given the option of flying home every other weekend at the employer’s expense. The claimant testified the decedent came home for the Memorial Day weekend in May of 1985.

The record shows that at sometime after 11:30 p.m. on June 1, 1985, the decedent was traveling southeast on U.S. 87 about 11 miles north of Cuero, Texas. From the crash evidence, the investigators opined the decedent’s car crossed the center line into the northwest bound lane of traffic. His car collided with an oncoming car. Both cars caught fire. The decedent and two persons in the other car were all burned beyond recognition. At the time of the collision, the decedent was traveling in the opposite direction from his apartment in Sequin.

The claimant testified that on June 2, 1985, a Tinley Park police officer came to her home to inform her that the decedent had been killed in an auto collision in Texas. On June 3, 1985, the claimant received a phone call from Dave Woodward, a contract engineer with the employer. The claimant testified Woodward related to her some of the details surrounding the decedent’s death. The claimant testified that Woodward told her the project at Sequin, Texas, had been completed at the end of May, and that SMI had been very pleased with the work the decedent had done. She stated that Woodward told her that SMI had decided to throw a barbeque for the decedent on Saturday night, June 1,1985, in Cuero, Texas.

She further testified Woodward told her the decedent was killed on his way back to his apartment in Sequin when the car he was driving collided with another car. At the decedent’s funeral, which Woodward attended, Woodward told the claimant that persons who attended the barbeque told him that the decedent seemed fine when he left the barbeque.

Dave Woodward testified that SMI had requested the use of nonunion labor for the installation of the industrial furnace. By agreement, the employer was prohibited from using nonunion labor. Therefore, an arrangement was agreed to whereby SMI received bids on the installation, which the employer reviewed. The employer recommended Commercial Contracting Company (CCC); however, SMI did the actual hiring of CCC. The decedent was sent to SMI to make sure the furnace was properly installed. The decedent was the only representative of the employer continuously at the site. He gave advice to CCC employees on installing the furnace.

Woodward denied that the conversation with the claimant on June 3, 1985, dealt with the facts surrounding the decedent’s death. Woodward testified he did not tell the claimant that SMI had wanted to honor the decedent with a barbeque. Woodward testified that no one told him the barbeque was held to honor the decedent. Woodward further testified that to his knowledge the barbeque had been hosted by Larry Palma, a foreman who worked for CCC, not SMI. Woodward testified there would have been no business advantage to the employer if the decedent attended a barbeque hosted by CCC. The decedent was not a salesman for the employer. CCC was not their customer, and they had no direct business relationship with CCC.

The Texas medical examiner’s report indicated the decedent had a blood-alcohol level of .387. The record shows the decedent’s body was severely damaged by the fire. At arbitration, Dr. Vincent Papa, a toxicologist, testified that obtaining an uncontaminated blood sample from the charred remains would be very difficult. He testified the burning of the body would likely affect the sample. Dr. Jeffery Coe testified that after reviewing the medical examiner’s report he agreed with the examiner’s finding of a high blood-alcohol level and that acute alcohol intoxication contributed to the accident.

The arbitrator denied compensation, finding the decedent’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The arbitrator found the decedent had completed his job assignment prior to June 1, 1985; that he attended a party which did not further his employer’s interest and of which the employer had no knowledge; and that at the time of his death he was traveling in a direction opposite from his local residence and his next job assignment in Alabama. The arbitrator also noted the high blood-alcohol level in the autopsy report. The arbitrator concluded that the decedent’s activity at the time of his death was “clearly unanticipated, unforeseeable and unreasonable activity not normally to be expected of a traveling employee.”

After surveying the applicable law regarding traveling employees, the Commission affirmed finding the claimant had failed to sustain her burden of proving that the auto collision arose out of and in the course of the decedent’s employment. The Commission noted that the record contained “utterly no indication” of why the decedent was traveling in the direction he was at the time of the collision. The Commission found it significant that at the time of the collision the decedent was driving in a direction away from his lodgings and his next job assignment. Under these facts, the claimant had failed to establish the decedent was operating in the course of his employment at the time he was killed.

The Commission went on to find it significant that there was no evidence the decedent attended the barbeque at the direction of the employer. Since the decedent’s duties did not include sales, the Commission found the decedent was not involved in a job-related activity when he attended the barbeque and that the employer received no “significant benefit” from the decedent’s attendance.

Given the Commission found the decedent’s death did not occur in the course of his employment, it found it did not have to reach the employer’s intoxication defense. The Commission, citing the questionable accuracy of the autopsy report, found there was not enough evidence in the record to support a finding that, as a matter of law, the decedent’s death arose out of his drunken condition. The circuit court in a written opinion confirmed. The claimant appeals the denial of benefits.

The claimant contends the Commission’s finding that the decedent’s death did not occur in the course of his employment is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. She argues the decedent’s activity at the time of his death was reasonably anticipated and foreseeable. The claimant argues the attendance at the barbeque was a reasonable job-related activity. She contends the Commission erroneously attached importance to whether the employer received a “significant benefit” from the decedent’s attendance at the barbeque. The claimant contends the direction of the decedent’s travel at the time of his death is irrelevant, and that compensation has been paid in cases where the purpose of a decedent’s travels was unknown. See David Wexler & Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 506, 288 N.E.2d 420; Wright v. Industrial Comm’n (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 65, 338 N.E.2d 379.

Injuries to employees whose duties require them to travel away from home are not governed by the rules applicable to other employees. (Howell Tractor & Equipment Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 567, 403 N.E.2d 215.) Under the standard enunciated in Ace Pest Control, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 386, 205 N.E.2d 453, the test for determining whether an injury to a traveling employee arose out of and in the course of his employment is the reasonableness of the conduct in which the employee was engaged and whether it might normally be anticipated or foreseen by the employer. (U.S. Industries, Production Machine Division v. Industrial Comm’n (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 469, 240 N.E.2d 637.) Therefore, a traveling employee may be compensated for injuries sustained while he was engaged in recreational activities as long as those activities were reasonable and foreseeable. See David Wexler & Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 506, 288 N.E.2d 420; Wright v. Industrial Comm’n (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 65, 338 N.E.2d 379.

The burden of establishing compensability rests upon the claimant, and proof that he would not have been at the place where the injury occurred but for his employment is not alone sufficient. (Howell Tractor & Equipment Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 567, 403 N.E.2d 215.) The decision of the Commission on a question of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Paganelis v. Industrial Comm’n (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 468, 548 N.E.2d 1033.

In the instant case, the issue is whether the decedent’s activity at the time he was killed was reasonable and whether such activity was of a type normally to have been anticipated or foreseen by the employer.

The Commission in this case placed primary significance on the fact that at the time of the collision, there is no indication why the decedent was traveling in the direction he was. He had apparently left the barbeque and was driving in a direction away from his residence in Sequin, Texas. Woodward testified the decedent’s belongings at the apartment were not packed. At the time of his death, he was not traveling in the direction of Alabama, his next job assignment. Therefore, it could not be inferred he was on his way to the next job-site. In sum, this conduct was not reasonable nor would it normally be anticipated or foreseen. His travels after leaving the barbeque were apparently unrelated to returning to his lodgings. There is no way of knowing where he was going.

In David Wexler & Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 506, 288 N.E.2d 420, the decedent, a traveling salesman, was killed in an auto collision in Omaha, Nebraska, on Memorial Day. At the time of his death, the decedent was wearing a short-sleeve shirt and there was golfing and fishing equipment in the car. He was traveling in the direction of the motel he was staying at, on the street on which the motel was located. The Commission awarded benefits. The supreme court affirmed, finding the issue was one of fact for the Commission to decide and that the Commission’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The record in Wexler contained the deposition of the motel manager, who testified the decedent had told him that he was going to an appointment. The employer had failed to raise a hearsay objection in the prior proceedings.

The court went on to find that even if the decedent had been engaged in recreational activity, it was not unreasonable or unanticipated that the decedent would partake of such activity on a holiday. The court stated a traveling employee’s protection under the Act is not limited to physical acts connected with performing his job-related duties which occur during his normal business hours.

In Wright v. Industrial Comm’n (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 65, 338 N.E.2d 379, the decedent was a field erection supervisor. The employer manufactured industrial machines. The decedent’s duties consisted of supervising the installation of the machines in the purchasers’ factories. The decedent was in Tennessee on an assignment when he was killed in a collision on a Saturday, some six miles from his rented motel room. The incident occurred around noon on a sunny day. It was unclear why the decedent was driving on that road. However, there were indications the decedent may have been going for some welding equipment at the time he was killed. The employer presented evidence to refute these facts.

The Commission denied benefits and circuit court confirmed. The supreme court reversed. Citing, inter alia, Ace Pest and Wexler, the court found it neither unreasonable nor unforeseeable that the decedent would be driving his car within six miles of his motel, including for recreational purposes. The court held that even though the cause of the accident was unknown, this did not preclude compensation. The court stated the facts were undisputed. The court concluded that the issue was one of law and that as a matter of law the death arose out of and in the course of the decedent’s employment.

In U.S. Industries, Production Machine Division v. Industrial Comm’n (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 469, 240 N.E.2d 637, the supreme court reversed the Commission’s award of benefits to a claimant who was injured while undertaking a midnight pleasure drive in unfamiliar, mountainous terrain. The court found the drive was a “clearly unanticipated, unforeseeable and unreasonable activity not normally to be expected of a traveling employee.” 40 Ill. 2d at 475.

In the instant case, the decedent’s activity at the time of the collision was more akin to those of the claimant in U.S. Industries than the decedents in Wexler and Wright. The claimant testified she was told by Woodward that the barbeque was held to honor the decedent for the fine job he had done. Woodward denied telling this to the claimant. In fact, he testified no one told him the barbeque was held to honor the decedent. He testified to his knowledge the barbeque was hosted by an employee of CCC, while the employer had a business relationship with SMI. Woodward testified there was no business advantage to the employer of the decedent attending a barbeque hosted by CCC. There was no other evidence presented on this discrepancy. It was within the province of the Commission to find the testimony of Woodward more credible than that of the claimant.

Even if the barbeque was job related, at the time the decedent was killed, he had left the barbeque and was not heading back to his lodgings. There is no indication of where he was going at approximately 11:30 p.m. The Commission’s finding that this activity was unreasonable and unforeseeable is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The parties argue rather extensively about the intoxication evidence. This was not the basis for the Commission’s decision and we need not address the issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCULLOUGH, P.J., and RAKOWSKI, WOODWARD, and RARICK, JJ., concur.


author: JUSTICE McNULTY

text:
    SUSAN M. TOPPEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS REDONDO, DefendantAppellee.
    First District (5th Division)
    No. 1—92—0999
    Opinion filed May 28, 1993.
    Rehearing denied June 23, 1993.
    Modified opinion filed July 30, 1993.

      Raymond P. Concannon, Ltd., of Chicago (Raymond P. Concannon and Michael P. Concannon, of counsel), for appellant.
    Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (William C. Anderson III, Hugh C. Griffin, and Diane I. Jennings, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE McNULTY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Susan M. Toppel appeals from a jury verdict in favor of defendant Dr. Luis Redondo in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff injured her left knee in a softball game. She was treated by Dr. Redondo, an orthopedic surgeon, who performed arthroscopic surgery on her knee. When plaintiff continued to experience pain in her knee, she saw another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Dossier, who performed an arthroscopic examination and then reconstructive surgery of plaintiff’s knee. Plaintiff still continued to experience pain in her knee.

Plaintiff’s first contention is that defendant should not have been permitted to read part of Dr. Fossier’s evidence deposition at trial. Because Dr. Fossier was unable to testify at trial, his evidence deposition was taken two months before trial. During his cross-examination, Dr. Fossier identified defendant’s exhibit No. 1 as the letter that he wrote declining to testify as an expert on plaintiff’s behalf. In his letter, Dr. Fossier stated:

“While I do not necessarily agree with the way Dr. Redondo proceeded with the treatment of Ms. Toppel’s torn anterior cruciate ligament, I do not think that based on the review of the records which you have provided that his care necessarily constitutes a claim of malpractice.”

Plaintiff objected at both the evidence deposition and at trial, stating that Dr. Fossier should not be allowed to testify on cross-examination as to the contents of his letter since this went beyond the scope of direct examination. Plaintiff maintains that on direct examination Dr. Fossier testified only as to his care and treatment of the plaintiff and no questions or responses were given regarding the appropriateness of defendant’s care. Plaintiff contends that the error was compounded by the fact that defense counsel also used the letter in cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Kane, and the trial court then allowed Dr. Fossier’s letter to be given to the jury during deliberations.

A similar situation occurred in Gust K. Newberg, Inc. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 918, 506 N.E.2d 658, wherein the defendant objected that the plaintiff’s cross-examination during an evidence deposition went beyond the scope of the direct. The court concluded:

“We agree with [plaintiff] that a separate notice of deposition need not have been given by [plaintiff], but we disagree that it was appropriate for [plaintiff] to cross-examine [the witness] beyond the bounds of the direct examination without first concluding the [defendant’s] examination. *** [I]n an evidence deposition the examination and cross-examination shall be the same as though the deponent were testifying at trial. (103 Ill. 2d R. 206(c)(2).) Cross-examination is limited to subjects covered in direct examination, because other subjects would not be relevant. [Citation.] The proper procedure for [plaintiff’s] counsel to have followed would have been to limit his scope of cross-examination and, after concluding his cross-examination, proceed to examine the witness directly.” (Newberg, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 930, 506 N.E.2d at 666.)

The court in Newberg did not, however, reverse on this basis since it found the witness’ testimony to be irrelevant.

Here, Dr. Fossier’s letter was indeed relevant. It bore directly on whether defendant’s treatment of plaintiff constituted malpractice. Although defendant concedes that his cross-examination of Dr. Dossier went beyond the scope of the direct, we decline to reverse on this basis. Plaintiff does not dispute that Dr. Fossier’s testimony regarding the contents of his letter was admissible evidence. Instead, plaintiff contends that he was prejudiced by the introduction of this evidence at the improper time. We, however, do not believe that the jury verdict would have been any different if the evidence had been introduced at the proper time.

Plaintiff next contends that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence an article entitled, “The Incomplete Tears of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Knee Locking,” written in part by defendant’s expert, Dr. Noble. In support of her assertion, plaintiff relies on Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital (1984), 124 Ill. App. 3d 42, 463 N.E.2d 216, and Schuchman v. Stackable (1990), 198 Ill. App. 3d 209, 555 N.E.2d 1012, wherein it was held that an expert witness on direct examination may not read into evidence excerpts from articles and treatises which support his testimony. Those cases are not applicable here, however, since Dr. Noble simply identified the article as one that he authored and at no point discussed or relied on the article during his testimony.

It was during the cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Kane, that the contents of Dr. Noble’s article were brought before the jury. During the cross-examination Dr. Kane admitted that if plaintiff’s injury was an incomplete tear, that type of injury was discussed in Dr. Noble’s article and according to the article, defendant’s treatment of the injury was within the standard of care. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant’s cross-examination was proper since the law clearly states that an expert witness may be cross-examined as to the views of recognized authorities expressed in treatises or professional periodicals. (Hollembaek v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 773, 484 N.E.2d 1237; see Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253.) Because the contents of the article were properly brought before the jury during Dr. Kane’s cross-examination, there is no need to reverse on the basis that this article was allowed to go to the jury room. The trial court has broad discretion in determining what exhibits may be taken to the jury room, and absent a determination that the exhibit was both erroneous and prejudicial, the appellate court will not reverse the trial court’s decision. Bautista v. Verson Allsteel Press Co. (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 524, 504 N.E.2d 772.

Plaintiff’s final contention is that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on her theory of the case. The issues instruction given to the jury states plaintiff’s claims that defendant negligently:

“(a) failed to properly treat plaintiff’s completely torn left anterior cruciate ligament by placing sutures into it; (b) ordered physical therapy with flexion and extension to plaintiff’s left knee at a point in time when such care was contraindicated; and (c) failed to keep plaintiff’s left knee properly immobilized for a sufficient period of time to allow healing to take place.”

Plaintiff claims that the trial court erred when it refused to include in the instruction plaintiff’s claim that defendant negligently “failed to undertake complete reconstruction of plaintiff’s tom left anterior cmciate ligament.” This statement, however, did not accurately reflect the evidence as presented at trial. Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Kane, testified that to repair a completely torn anterior cruciate ligament it would have been within the standard of care for defendant to perform complete reconstruction on plaintiff’s knee or to do nothing at all. Since the instruction as proposed by plaintiff did not accurately or completely reflect the evidence at trial, the trial court properly refused to give this instruction to the jury. See Skonberg v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991), 215 Ill. App. 3d 735, 576 N.E.2d 28 (where part of a jury instruction is correct and part is incorrect, the entire instruction should be denied).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Affirmed.

MURRAY and COUSINS, JJ., concur.


author: JUSTICE BUCKLEY

text:
    SAMPATH KUMARAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARBARA BROTMAN et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    First District (1st Division)
    No. 1—91—1885
    Opinion filed May 10, 1993.
    Rehearing denied June 17, 1993.
    Modified opinion filed June 28, 1993.

      Sampath Kumaran, appellant pro se.

    Sidley & Austin, of Chicago (Richard J. O’Brien and Paul E. Veith, of counsel), for appellees Barbara Brotman and Chicago Tribune Company.
    Alholm & Monahan, of Chicago (Peter A. Monahan and Debra Criche Mell, of counsel), for appellee Andrew Kochanowski.
    James J. Roche & Associates, of Chicago (Maria G. Calderon, of counsel), for appellee James J. Roche.
   JUSTICE BUCKLEY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Sampath Kumaran, a former substitute school teacher and security guard, filed a pro se defamation complaint on June 1, 1990, against two media defendants and two nonmedia defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that he had been libeled by an article published in the Chicago Tribune (the Tribune) on August 8, 1989. The media defendants are the Chicago Tribune Company (incorrectly sued as Chicago Tribune Newspaper) and the reporter who wrote the newspaper article in controversy, Barbara Brotman. The nonmedia defendants are two attorneys, James J. Roche (incorrectly sued as James B. Roche) and Andrew Kochanowski, who were quoted in the newspaper article. Defendants filed motions pursuant to section 2—615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2—615 (now 735 ILCS 5/2—615 (West 1992))) to dismiss the action. On March 28, 1991, the trial court sustained the motions to dismiss. Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff filed a timely pro se appeal.

Plaintiff’s pro se briefs and supplementary materials contain oxymorons and other nonsensical remarks (such as “destructive construction,” “intentionally negligent,” “journalistic cannibalism,” and “cannibalistic journalism”) that are difficult to decipher. Plaintiff’s materials also are replete with information which is extrinsic to the record on appeal and which consequently may not be considered on review. (Etten v. Lane (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 439, 442, 485 N.E.2d 1177, 1179.) Although plaintiff understandably may be confused about the law of defamation, which the Illinois Supreme Court has described as a “morass” (Mittelman v. Witous (1989), 135 Ill. 2d 220, 232, 552 N.E.2d 973, 978), we will identify and analyze the relevant issues in accordance with the applicable legal principles.

The newspaper article at issue was entitled, “Having his day in court is virtually an everyday event for West Sider,” and it was featured in a section entitled, “About the town.” The record does not reveal any further information regarding the context or placement of the article in the newspaper. Plaintiff’s complaint specified 13 allegedly libelous remarks in the article. The first one was the title.

The article then began by stating, “It is shocking to discover how often Sampath Kumaran has been wronged.” The article stated that Peoples Gas had shut off his heat, that Illinois Bell had “ ‘wantonly’ ” given him a defective telephone line, that the city had overbilled him for water, that Kuwait Airways had bumped him from a flight, that Air India had lost his luggage, that employers had fired him as a security guard because he is an East Indian, and that the State of Illinois had denied him unemployment benefits while he was between jobs as a substitute teacher. The article then stated, “Sampath Kumaran has suffered,” and it cited damages allegedly caused by the airline bumping and the defective telephone line, including “ ‘mental torture’ ” and the loss of his job.

The article went on to state, “Sampath Kumaran has sued. Frequently.” According to the article, plaintiff had filed “at least 24 lawsuits” since 1980, including a lawsuit initially seeking $1 million against Peoples Gas, and lawsuits against Illinois Bell, the City of Chicago, Kuwait Airways, and Air India, for the above claims. The article stated that some of the lawsuits had been dismissed, but that many had been settled, “which several lawyers believe is Kumaran’s intention.” (This is the second remark which plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then quoted defendants Roche and Kochanowski as follows:

“ ‘This guy’s just working a scam,’ said James J. Roche, who represented Andy Frain Security Co., which Kumaran claimed discriminated against him by firing him. [This is the third remark which plaintiff claimed was libelous.]
‘Basically, he’s figured out the system, that it’s cheaper to settle than to try a case,’ said Andrew Kochanowski, the attorney who represented Kuwait Airways. [This is the fourth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]
The airline, which said Kumaran was not on the flight he desired because he left the departure gate and did not return until after [the] plane left, paid Kumaran $2,000 to settle his claim.
‘He told the court he works 50 days a year as a substitute schoolteacher,’ Kochanowski said. ‘The rest of the time he spends in court. This is his full-time profession.’ ” (This is the fifth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article went on to describe the exterior of plaintiff’s residence and the signs in his windows asking passersby not to smoke, litter, play radios, or make noise. The article then stated:

“According to documents he has filed, Kumaran has recently worked as a substitute teacher in Berwyn’s Morton High School District 201. The district reports that Kumaran’s status is, predictably, in litigation. [This is the sixth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]
Kumaran declined to be interviewed. He did, however, say of the notion that he files unwarranted suits for settlement money, ‘That is the wrong impression.’
He also threatened to sue.”

The article went on to quote Kochanowski, who admired plaintiff for being organized and for studying at the law library; and William Lazarus, who represented Air India and who described plaintiff as “fairly likeable,” “very persistent,” and “very flowery” in his correspondence. Lazarus was quoted as stating, “ ‘In his correspondence he was saying, “I don’t want to sue Mother India. I would be happy to settle for a mere $20,000.” ’ ”

The article then quoted Roche as stating that plaintiff knew more about civil rights law than Roche did. The article reported that Roche said Andy Frain had fired plaintiff because plaintiff had “walked off a job, claiming that the temperature inside McCormick Place was too cold.” (This is the seventh remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article stated that Roche knew plaintiff previously “had filed numerous similar suits,” but that plaintiff was “ ‘taunting’ ” Roche because plaintiff knew evidence of those suits would be inadmissible in a jury trial. (The “taunting” remark is the eighth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) According to the article, Roche recalled that during the lawsuit, plaintiff had “accused two federal court judges of racism, including Senior U.S. District Court Judge James Parsons, the first black federal judge appointed since Reconstruction.” (This is the ninth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then quoted Roche as follows:

“ ‘Federal judges bend over backwards for people with civil rights cases,’ Roche said. Then you see an eight-ball like this guy take advantage of it, and it really irritates you.’ ” (This is the tenth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article then reported that judges who “accepted his [plaintiff’s] claim that he has no money and deserves representation” had appointed “some of the finest law firms in Chicago” to represent plaintiff for free, including William Snapp of Jenner and Block, and Richard Phelan, who “turned the cases over to more junior attorneys in their firms.” (This is the eleventh remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then stated:

“Snapp does not recall the Kumaran case. But he said lawyers, especially those appointed to represent the poor, should not assume a case is frivolous or has no factual basis even if the plaintiff is a frequent suit filer.
‘Even paranoids have enemies,’ he said. ‘It’s not our job to be judge.’ ” (This is the twelfth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article reported that Federal judges had refused to appoint free attorneys for plaintiff on at least five occasions. The article reported further that two attorneys who had been appointed to represent plaintiff in a case against the City Colleges of Chicago “withdrew rather than sign Kumaran’s complaint. In it, Kumaran listed 144 teaching jobs he said he had applied for, and said it was due to discrimination that he had not gotten a single one.”

The article stated that plaintiff had “left an indelible impression on many.” The article concluded as follows:

“Kochanowski will not soon forget the way he picked up his settlement check from the lawyer’s office. [This is the thirteenth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]
‘He showed up with his wife dressed as a security guard,’ he said. ‘He said, “I have been advised that I will be attacked.’ ”
‘At settlement time, he brought his son in,’ said Mary Patricia Benz of Phelan Pope & John, one of Kumaran’s court-appointed attorneys. ‘He told me his son’s name was America the Illustrious. I’ll never forget it.’ ”

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was an American citizen and a person “of good name, fame, with international and national reputation as a professional with very high qualifications, experiences and merit.” He alleged that defendants connived in the composition of the article, which contained “many lies” and was “knowingly written with reckless disregard.” He alleged that Brotman “maliciously and wrongfully and with reckless disregard [for] the plaintiff’s good name and fame” caused the Tribune to publish the article. As we noted previously, he listed 13 remarks from the article and alleged that they constituted “some of the lies.” In connection with the ninth allegedly libelous remark (that he had accused Federal judges of racism), he alleged that Roche told him in the Federal court hallway, “ ‘You will not get anything from Andy Frain. You will get shit.’ ” He alleged further that he informed the judge of Roche’s remark and that the judge then reprimanded Roche for “his senseless and racist remarks.” He then alleged as follows:

“5. The Defendants caused the article of the Chicago Tribune Newspaper to be delivered to numerous people, boards of education, attorneys, employment agencies and the source of income of the plaintiff, and also inside the courtrooms when the courts were in session, and the selfsame libelous, defamatory document, with several lies, was read by all of said persons.
6. The defendants, in making the communication, intended it to mean that the plaintiff was a swindler, and a crook, and the persons to whom the defamatory matter was communicated as aforesaid understood the words to have that meaning.
7. The defamatory matter communicated as aforesaid did and was calculated to cause great injury to plaintiff’s reputation in his capacity as an educator and a professional teacher.”

He alleged that defendants “knew that the words were untrue” at the time of publication. He alleged further that the defamation had damaged his credit and reputation, and had caused the loss of over $1 million in earnings. Finally, he demanded $6 million in “general” and punitive damages, plus court costs.

The Tribune and Brotman filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the article was not defamatory because it consisted of constitutionally protected opinion and was capable of an innocent construction. They contended further that plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action for defamation because he had “made himself a limited public figure” by virtue of his allegation that he had an international and national reputation and by virtue of his frequent recourse to the courts. They contended that he had failed to plead the requisite actual malice for a defamation claim by a public figure. Finally, they contended that the article was not defamatory per se because it did not impugn plaintiff’s ability as a teacher.

In his response to the above motion to dismiss, plaintiff denied that he was a public figure and he stated that the article was defamatory per se and an invasion of privacy. He stated further that the purpose of the article was to ridicule him, deprive him of his livelihood, and pressure him to leave the country. Finally, he stated that the article incited public hatred and caused the loss of employment opportunities.

Kochanowski and Roche filed separate motions to dismiss, raising contentions similar to the ones raised by the motion of the media defendants. Roche’s motion discussed his remarks about plaintiff’s knowledge of civil rights law and plaintiff as an “eight-ball,” but failed to discuss his remark that plaintiff was “just working a scam.”

In response, plaintiff reiterated that he was not a public figure and that he had an actionable claim for defamation. He contended that he also had actionable claims for all four common law privacy torts.

Among the other materials filed with the circuit court were two 1986 documents concerning plaintiff’s teaching abilities and prospects. One was a “professional evaluation” of plaintiff’s substitute teaching performance at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. In the evaluation, James Marran, the chairman of the social studies department at New Trier, stated that plaintiff had worked at New Trier as a substitute teacher for several years, and he described plaintiff as loyal and competent. Marran stated further that colleagues always had found plaintiff to be “congenial and cooperative” and that students had found him to be “an interesting and well prepared teacher.” According to Marran, plaintiff had handled a recent assignment with “his usual grace and demeanor and performed splendidly,” and he was “conscientious, straightforward and keenly perceptive,” and “a man of immense charm, poise and versatility” with “impressive” credentials. He stated that he had not conducted a formal evaluation of plaintiff’s work, but he concluded by stating that plaintiff’s “special skills deserved to be recognized through placement in a permanent teaching situation.”

In the other document, a letter “to whom it may concern,” Donald L. Whited, a co-director of the evening program for Morton High School in Berwyn, Illinois, stated that plaintiff had taught evening classes for several semesters and had worked as a substitute teacher at Morton High School during the day for several years. He stated that he understood plaintiff previously had taught in Ohio, Canada, Ethiopia, and India. He was “very happy” with plaintiff’s night school instruction. According to Whited, plaintiff was a “very enthusiastic” and “well prepared teacher,” and Whited planned to keep him on the staff of evening school instructors.

In its written order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, the trial court observed that the article was not defamatory per se because it neither implied criminal conduct nor impugned plaintiff’s integrity or ability as a teacher. The trial court observed further that the subject of the article — plaintiff’s use of the courts — was a matter of public concern and entitled to full constitutional protection. In the trial court’s opinion, the remarks in the article such as eight-ball, paranoid, and scam were nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. Finally, the trial court observed that plaintiff could not evade the defamation defenses by styling the action as a privacy tort.

During a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, plaintiff orally informed the trial court that defendants had “systematically mailed” copies of the article to boards of education, attorneys, employment agencies, and security companies. According to plaintiff, numerous boards of education that previously had given him assignments had completely stopped doing so. In denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court refused to allow plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and plaintiff has appealed. In response, defendants contend that the article was not defamatory per se because it neither imputed the commission of a criminal offense nor impugned plaintiff’s teaching ability or integrity. They contend further that the article was not actionable because it consisted of constitutionally protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole and was capable of an innocent construction. They also contend that plaintiff is a public figure, that the article addressed a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff failed to plead the requisite actual malice for a defamation action by a public figure or involving a matter of public concern. Finally, they contend that the article was a privileged account of judicial proceedings and that it is not actionable under any of the four common law privacy torts.

In reviewing the trial court’s dismissal of the action without leave to amend, we must treat as true all well-pleaded facts and inferences. (Fellhauer v. City of Geneva (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 495, 499, 568 N.E.2d 870, 872.)

“[A]ll well-pleaded facts in the challenged portions of the complaint are to be taken as true and a reviewing court must determine whether the allegations of the complaint, when interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.” (Di Benedetto v. Flora Township (1992), 153 Ill. 2d 66, 69-70, 605 N.E.2d 571, 573.)

Pleadings are to be construed liberally. (M G D, Inc. v. Dalen Trading Co. (1992), 230 Ill. App. 3d 916, 919, 596 N.E.2d 15, 17.) A motion to dismiss should not be sustained “unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proven under the pleadings which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” (Lovgren v. Citizens First National Bank (1989), 126 Ill. 2d 411, 419, 534 N.E.2d 987, 990.) Whether to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint is within the discretion of the trial court, and the test to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion is “whether allowance of the amendment furthers the ends of justice.” (Ray Dancer, Inc. v. D M C Corp. (1992), 230 Ill. App. 3d 40, 48, 594 N.E.2d 1344, 1349.) We believe that the ends of justice require that plaintiff be allowed to amend his complaint to plead causes of action for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and false-light invasion of privacy.

DEFAMATION

“In Illinois, a statement is considered defamatory if it impeaches a person’s integrity, human decency, respect for others or reputation and thereby lowers that person in the eyes of the community [citation], as the gravamen of an action for defamation is damage to the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of other persons.” (Rosner v. Field Enterprises, Inc. (1990), 205 Ill. App. 3d 769, 789, 564 N.E.2d 131, 142-43.)

Words are defamatory per se if they, inter alia, impute the commission of a criminal offense or prejudice a party in his trade, profession or business. (Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 238-39, 552 N.E.2d at 982; Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 790, 564 N.E.2d at 143; Harte v. Chicago Council of Lawyers (1991), 220 Ill. App. 3d 255, 260, 581 N.E.2d 275, 278.) Defamation per se is considered so obviously damaging that damages are presumed and the plaintiff is not required to show special damages. (Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 789-90, 564 N.E.2d at 143; Harte, 220 Ill. App. 3d at 259-60, 581 N.E.2d at 278.) In contrast, words are defamatory per guod if they require extrinsic facts or innuendo to explain their defamatory meaning, in which case the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages. Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 233, 552 N.E.2d at 979; Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 790, 564 N.E.2d at 143; Harte, 220 Ill. App. 3d at 260, 581 N.E.2d at 278.

In this case, we believe that plaintiff can plead a cause of action for defamation per se based upon the Tribune article. In analyzing this matter, we will focus upon the article’s explicit remarks that plaintiff was “working a scam” by filing numerous lawsuits to extract monetary settlements on a full-time basis.

The word “scam” has been defined as “[a] fraudulent business scheme; swindle” (American Heritage Dictionary 1095 (2d College ed. 1985)) and as the same as a “confidence game,” i.e., “a swindle effected by gaining the confidence of the victim” (Webster’s New World Dictionary 297 (2d College ed. 1982)). The verb “scam” has been defined as “to cheat or swindle, as in a confidence game.” Webster’s New World Dictionary 1270 (2d College ed. 1982).

In Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp. (1991), 217 Ill. App. 3d 803, 807, 578 N.E.2d 299, 303, appeal allowed (1992), 143 Ill. 2d 639, 587 N.E.2d 1016, aff’d in part & rev’d in part & cause remanded (1992), 154 Ill. 2d 1, 607 N.E.2d 201, which none of the parties cited, it was held that the word “scamming” could be found to be defamatory per se. There, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of a defamation action against radio broadcasters who announced that the plaintiff, whose wife and son had neurofibromatosis and who was promoting a cartoon festival to benefit persons afflicted with neurofibromatosis, was “scamming” them.

On December 4, 1992, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court that the word “scamming” could be found to be defamatory per se because it imputed a lack of integrity in the discharge of employment duties and prejudiced the plaintiff in his business by implying that he was lying and trying to deceive people. The court also rejected the defendants’ contentions that there was a reasonable innocent construction for the statement, that it was a constitutionally protected opinion and that it was nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. (Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp. (1992), 154 Ill. 2d 1, 12-16, 607 N.E.2d 201, 207-09.) We believe that Kolegas is dispositive of several issues in the case at bar.

In the case at bar, the clear import of the Tribune article, in its own words, was that plaintiff’s full-time occupation was the filing of “unwarranted suits for settlement money,” i.e., that he was engaged in “scamming” — cheating or swindling — the courts and his legal adversaries. The article could be found to be defamatory because it impeached plaintiff’s integrity and reputation. It could be found to be defamatory per se because it could be found to have imputed that he had committed a crime, and also because it could be found to have prejudiced him in his profession or trade as a schoolteacher.

With respect to the commission of a crime, section 17 — 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides in part as follows:

“A person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud:
(a) He causes another, by deception or threat to execute a document disposing of property or a document by which a pecuniary obligation is incurred.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 17—l(B)(a) (now 720 ILCS 5/17-l(B)(a) (West 1992)).)

The commission of the above type of deceptive practice is a Class A misdemeanor (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 17—1(B) (now 720 ILCS 5/17—1(B) (West 1992))), punishable by a term of imprisonment less than one year. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, 1005—8—3(a)(1) (now 730 ILCS 515—8—3(aXl) (West 1992)).) When the Tribune article is given its natural and obvious meaning, its clear import could be understood to be that plaintiff had filed numerous lawsuits as part of a fraudulent scheme or deceptive practice to procure pecuniary settlements. We therefore believe that the article could be found to be defamatory per se because it could be understood to have imputed the commission of a deceptive practice under section 17—l(B)(a) of the Criminal Code. See also Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 807, 564 N.E.2d at 154 (“The Accident Swindlers” headline and description of a fraudulent scheme imputed podiatrist’s involvement in the commission of a crime).

We also believe that the article could be found to be defamatory per se because it could be understood to have prejudiced plaintiff as a schoolteacher. The portrayal of his full-time occupation as the filing of numerous “scam” lawsuits could tend to prejudice him in his trade as a teacher because a teacher would be expected to set a good example and function as a role model for his young, impressionable students. By portraying plaintiff as a swindler, the article could be found to prejudice his teaching ability and integrity because it presented him as someone who would not be an acceptable role model for young students.

We have concluded that the article could be found to be defamatory per se because it could be understood to impute plaintiff’s commission of a criminally deceptive practice, and because it could be found to prejudice him in his capacity as a schoolteacher by maligning his ability to serve as a role model for his pupils. Whether it was actionable, however, depends upon a number of other considerations.

First, we do not believe that the article was reasonably susceptible of an innocent construction.

“The gist of the innocent construction rale is that the statement is to be construed in the context it is published in, and that words should be given their natural and obvious meanings.” (Harte, 220 Ill. App. 3d at 262, 581 N.E.2d at 279.)

The test is not whether the words reasonably can be innocently interpreted, but rather “whether the words, considered in context and given their natural and obvious meaning, may reasonably be innocently interpreted.” Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 805-06, 564 N.E.2d at 153.

We reject defendants’ contention that the Tribune article may reasonably be innocently interpreted. Instead, when given its natural and obvious meaning, the article implied that plaintiff had defrauded the courts and his legal adversaries by filing numerous unwarranted lawsuits to extract monetary settlements. See Kolegas, 154 Ill. 2d at 10-14, 607 N.E.2d at 206-08.

Nor do we believe that the rules regarding opinion and rhetorical hyperbole warranted dismissal of plaintiff’s suit with prejudice. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1, 21, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1, 19, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2707, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a separate constitutional privilege for expressions of opinion. The Court observed that the true meaning of the word “opinion,” for purposes of defamation, is “idea,” that there is no “wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion,’ ” and that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact.” (Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 17, 110 S. Ct. at 2705.) Rhetorical hyperbole is not actionable as defamation because it cannot reasonably be construed as stating a fact about the plaintiff. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 19, 110 S. Ct. at 2706.

In determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the statement can be objectively verified as true or false. (Piersall v. SportsVision (1992), 230 Ill. App. 3d 503, 510, 595 N.E.2d 103, 107.) A statement of fact usually concerns the plaintiff’s conduct or character. (Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 241, 552 N.E.2d at 983.) The court may additionally consider whether the statement “has a precise core of meaning for which a consensus of understanding exists, or conversely, whether the statement is indefinite and ambiguous,” whether the “literary context of the statement would influence the average reader’s readiness to infer that a particular statement has factual content,” and whether the “broader social context or setting in which the statement appears signals a usage as either fact or opinion.” Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 243, 552 N.E.2d at 984.

Here, the gist of the article suggested that it was factual. The gist of the article — that plaintiff was “working a scam” by filing frequent, unwarranted lawsuits to procure pecuniary settlements — concerned plaintiff’s conduct and his character, which suggests that it was factual. (See Mittelman, 135 Ill. 2d at 241, 552 N.E.2d at 983.) Furthermore, the word “scam” has a precise core of meaning for which a consensus of understanding exists, namely, swindle, and it is verifiable by reviewing the evidence in plaintiff’s cases to discern whether the cases were bona fide or bogus. The literary context of the “scam” remark would cause the average reader to infer that plaintiff’s lawsuits, especially the ones highlighted in the article against Peoples Gas, Illinois Bell, Kuwait Airways, Air India, and other defendants named in the article, were unwarranted or bogus. Although certain remarks in the article may constitute rhetorical hyperbole (for example, “eight-ball”), the “scam” remark and the essence of the article could be found to be libelous per se, and we therefore reject defendants’ contention that the article merely expressed nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. See Kolegas, 154 Ill. 2d at 15-16, 607 N.E.2d at 208-09.

The next issue concerns the status of the parties and the standard of liability. We observed earlier that this case involves media defendants and nonmedia defendants. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 706, 84 S. Ct. 710, 726, the Supreme Court held that a public official who sued a media defendant for defamation had to show “that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” There is no contention in the case at bar that plaintiff was a public official. However, public figures are subject to the same actual malice standard as public officials. (See Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 782, 564 N.E.2d at 138.) The media defendants contend that plaintiff was a public figure because he alleged in his complaint that he was nationally and internationally renowned. They contend further that the complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege the requisite actual malice for a defamation action filed by a public figure against a media defendant. They also contend that an allegation of actual malice was required because the article addressed a matter of public concern, namely, plaintiff’s use of the courts. The first question is whether plaintiff was a public figure.

Public schoolteachers have been held to be public figures because they are public employees, are paid with public funds, and hold highly responsible positions in the community. (Basarich v. Rodeghero (1974), 24 Ill. App. 3d 889, 892-93, 321 N.E.2d 739, 742.) In our view, Basarich sweeps too broadly. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 351, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 812, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 3013, the Supreme Court defined two alternative classes of public figures:

“In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions.”

(See also Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 782, 564 N.E.2d at 138.) The Court continued:

“Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public personality for all aspects of his life. It is preferable to reduce the public-figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual’s participation in the particular controversy giving risé to the defamation.” (Gertz, 418 U.S. at 352, 41 L. Ed. 2d at 812, 94 S. Ct. at 3013.)

By way of illustration, presidential candidate Ross Perot and basketball player Michael Jordan arguably may have achieved such pervasive fame as to have become public figures for all purposes, while Dr. Jack Kervorkian ■ arguably may have voluntarily placed himself into the public controversy over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide so as to have become a public figure for a limited range of issues. By way of contrast in the case at bar, plaintiff did not fall into either category of public figure. He was simply a substitute teacher. We therefore deem plaintiff to have been a private person. As a private person, he was not required to plead and prove actual malice by the media defendants and was only required to plead and prove negligence to recover actual, i.e., compensatory damages. (Gertz, 418 U.S. at 347-50, 41 L. Ed. 2d at 809-11, 94 S. Ct. at 3010-12.) However, unless plaintiff pleads and proves facts showing actual malice, he cannot recover punitive damages. (See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 349-50, 41 L. Ed. 2d at 810-11, 94 S. Ct. at 3011-12; Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 784, 564 N.E.2d at 139.) As we previously observed, actual malice consists of defendants’ knowledge that the statements in the article were false or their reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. Some of the pro se materials that plaintiff filed with the trial court contained accusations that defendants, or some of them, harbored racial animus or hatred for plaintiff and caused the article to be published as a means of pressuring him to leave this country and return to India. Given these circumstances, we believe that plaintiff should be allowed an opportunity to amend his complaint to plead facts, if he can, showing that defendants acted with actual malice, i.e., knowledge that the article was false or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, because actual malice is a prerequisite to his recovery of punitive damages.

Furthermore, we reject defendants’ assertion that the article concerned a matter of public interest, i.e., plaintiff’s use of the courts, requiring that he allege actual malice even to recover compensatory damages. We have rejected the public interest or concern test for constitutional protection, because any newspaper article arguably is one of public interest and such a test consequently is meaningless. Rosner, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 801-02, 564 N.E.2d at 150-51.

Moreover, we also reject defendants’ contention that the article was a privileged report on judicial proceedings. Under the common law privilege to report on judicial proceedings:

“[A] communication reporting the contents of a judicial proceeding is privileged, although it contains defamatory statements, if it is (a) accurate and complete as a fair summary of such proceedings, and (b) not made solely for the purpose of causing harm to the person defamed.” (Newell v. Field Enterprises, Inc. (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 735, 744, 415 N.E.2d 434, 443.)

The article here was not a complete, fair summary of judicial proceedings. There was no review of any testimony in plaintiff’s cases, nor any other evidence, discovery, arguments of counsel, judges’ findings or terms of settlements. Rather, the article presented only isolated bits and pieces of information about plaintiff and his cases in such a manner as to portray him not only as eccentric and bizarre, but also as a swindler. Under these circumstances, the article was not protected by a common law privilege. Cf. Nagib v. News-Sun (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 752, 757, 381 N.E.2d 1014, 1018 (newspaper article was privileged where it reviewed the testimony, the arguments of counsel, and the judicial findings in the plaintiff’s trial challenging his dismissal by a hospital).

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

Next, although the parties have not raised this issue, we believe that plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint to plead a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage or business expectancy.

“[T]o prevail on a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must prove: (1) his reasonable expectation of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s expectancy; (3) purposeful interference by the defendant that prevents the plaintiff’s legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship; and (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from such interference.” (Fellhauer, 142 Ill. 2d at 511, 568 N.E.2d at 878.)

The plaintiff is required to plead facts suggesting that the defendant acted with the intent or purpose of interfering with his business expectancies. (J. Eck & Sons, Inc. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. (1991), 213 Ill. App. 3d 510, 515, 572 N.E.2d 1090, 1093.) Furthermore, the plaintiff must allege business relationships with specific third parties. Du Page Aviation Corp., Flight Services, Inc. v. Du Page Airport Authority (1992), 229 Ill. App. 3d 793, 803, 594 N.E.2d 1334, 1340.

In this case, the record discloses that approximately three years prior to publication of the article, plaintiff was a substitute teacher in good standing at two suburban high schools, New Trier and Morton. His complaint alleged that defendants had “caused the article *** to be delivered to numerous people, boards of education, attorneys, employment agencies and the source of income of the plaintiff.” He has accused defendants of pressuring him into leaving the country, and during the hearing on his motion for reconsideration, he orally informed the trial court that defendants had “systematically mailed” copies of the article to boards of education, employment agencies, attorneys, and security companies, that numerous boards of education had stopped supplying him with teaching assignments and that attorneys had refused to represent him. There was a strong implication that defendants’ distribution of the article was designed to interfere with his business relationships to induce him to leave the country, and that defendants’ distribution of the article was the reason for his loss of teaching assignments and legal counsel. He may have had a legitimate expectancy in an employment relationship with certain schools, boards of education, or others, with which defendants may have interfered, but as a pro se litigant, he may not have understood that such a separate tort exists. Given the circumstances, we believe that he deserves an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts showing that defendants tortiously interfered with his prospective economic advantage or business expectancies with specific prospective employers.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

Finally, we believe that plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint to plead facts, if he can, setting forth the false-light invasion of privacy tort, which he raised in several briefs filed with the trial court. In reaching this conclusion, we are accepting as true, as we must in reviewing the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, the allegation in the complaint that “defendants knew that the words were untrue.” In pleading that the publicity was an invasion of his privacy, plaintiff should bear in mind that to state a cause of action for false-light invasion of privacy, which is closely related to defamation, he must plead facts suggesting that the article placed him in a false light, that the false light would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that defendants had actual malice. (See Kolegas, 154 Ill. 2d at 17, 607 N.E.2d at 209; Lovgren, 126 Ill. 2d at 418-23, 534 N.E.2d at 989-92.) He should also bear in mind that “minor mistakes in reporting, even if made deliberately, or false facts that offend a hypersensitive individual will not satisfy this element.” Lovgren, 126 Ill. 2d at 420, 534 N.E.2d at 990.

. Finally, we discern no basis in the record for plaintiff to plead the other three privacy torts, i.e., intrusion upon his seclusion or solitude, public disclosure of private embarrassing facts about him, or commercial appropriation of his name or likeness. See generally Melvin v. Burling (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 786, 787, 490 N.E.2d 1011, 1012.

To summarize, we believe that plaintiff deserves an opportunity to amend his complaint to plead facts supporting causes of action for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and false-light invasion of privacy. As a private person rather than a public figure, he is not required to allege that defendants acted with actual malice. To recover compensatory damages, he need only allege that they acted negligently. However, if he fails to allege facts suggesting that they acted with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that the article was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, he will not be able to recover punitive damages, and he will not be permitted to proceed with the false-light invasion of privacy claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Reversed and remanded.

MANNING, P.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.