Florida 4th DCA Lets Defamation-By-Implication Case Proceed Against CNN
Case: Black v. CNN, Inc., No. 4D2023-1257 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 10, 2025)
In 2015, CNN ran a series of articles and broadcasts alleging that St. Mary’s Hospital’s pediatric heart surgery program—led by Dr. Michael Black—had a “secret” mortality rate more than three times the national average. Reporters calculated a 12.5% death rate for infant open-heart surgeries between 2011 and 2013 using state filings and interviews with parents, while the Society for Thoracic Surgeons reported a national average of 3.3%. The coverage, including a feature on Anderson Cooper 360°, portrayed the program as unsafe and suggested that children were dying because of Dr. Black’s surgeries. CNN acknowledged that St. Mary’s disputed the figures and emphasized that raw data could be misleading without risk adjustment, but nonetheless emphasized its own calculations in graphics and headlines.
Dr. Black filed suit for defamation, arguing that CNN’s reliance on “raw” data created the false impression that he was an incompetent and dangerous surgeon. After years of litigation, the trial court granted summary judgment for CNN and its reporters, holding that the reporting was a protected methodological dispute.
On appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in part. The court reasoned that while CNN’s numbers were not literally false, presenting them without context could support a claim of defamation by implication. The judges distinguished CNN’s reporting from scientific debate in peer-reviewed journals, noting that these broadcasts were aimed at the general public, who could be misled by unadjusted statistics. The panel reinstated Dr. Black’s claims against CNN and three of its journalists, but affirmed dismissal of claims against one reporter, Dana Ford, who had only republished prior vetted content.
