Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

CAUSE NO.

08-CV-29961

DR. KEITH MILLER IN THE DISTRICT COURT


Plaintiff
vs. OF
DR. SHIRLEY PIGOTT and
DR. STEVEN HOTZE SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT SHIRLEY PIGOTT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Defendant Shirley Pigott and files her First Amended Original Answer and would
show the Court as follows:

1. Defendant enters a General Denial to all the allegations in Plaintiff’s pleadings and demands
proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2. Fraud and Illegality in Retaliation; that Plaintiff’s claim results from Defendant’s whistle
blowing and exposing Plaintiff’s unethical conduct while a member of the Texas Medical Board.

(Defendant pleads this as an affirmative defense rather than as a counter-claim because


Defendant’s claim of malicious prosecution can not be presented until this case is resolved).

3. Statute of Limitations.

4. Assumption of Risks. The disclosures made by Defendant occurred while Plaintiff was
knowingly involved in illegal, unethical conduct as a member of the Texas Medical Board.

5. Contributory Negligence.

6. Equitable Estoppel.

7. Truth.

8. Right of Free Speech as protected by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

9. Failure to Mitigate. Defendant’s claims of improper and unethical conduct by Plaintiff were
disregarded by Plaintiff, which led to additional whistle blowing by Defendant.

10. Public Figure. Defendant was acting as a public figure or limited public figure when
disclosing information concerning Plaintiff.
11. Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sections 73.002, through 73.005. Defendant claims
privileged matters, mitigating factors, lack of liability and truth, as such are set out in these
sections.

12. Qualified privilege defense due to lack of malice concerning information of interest to
Defendant and others to which information was sent.

13. Defendant’s communications appear in public media; Defendant claims a right to freedom of
the press under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

14. Defendant was engaged in 1st Amendment petitioning activity.

15. Defendant acted in good faith, without malice, without negligence, without knowledge of
falsity, without reckless disregard of falsity.

16. Exemplary damages are not allowable due to limitations of the Texas Constitution and the
U.S. Constitution, lack of actual malice and/or limitations of the Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendant recover costs,
attorney fees and further relief to which Defendant shows she is entitled, both in law and in
equity.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________
Jerry S. Payne
St. Bar No. 15658000
11505 Memorial Dr.
Houston, Texas 77024
713-785-0677
Fax-713-781-8547

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this pleading was served on Plaintiff and on Hotze on 12/15/09.
________________
Jerry S. Payne
1