PHILADELPHIA – Litigation between an addiction interventionist who launched a defamation and libel lawsuit against another recovery operation and one of its program coordinators for a peer support program was settled earlier this year.
On April 9, court records stated through U.S. District Court Judge John R. Padova that the action brought by Earle Van Blarcom was dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs. The dismissal was reached as part of a settlement, bringing an end to the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
Van Blarcom (a.k.a. “Earle Van”) and Hope on Deck of Newark, Del. initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 24, 2018 versus The Council of Southeast Pennsylvania, Inc. and Adam Sledd, jointly and individually, of Malvern.
Van is an interventionist assisting individuals with addiction issues, according to the lawsuit. He founded a non-profit called Hope on Deck, and in April 2018, was contacted by a woman in need of treatment and who was suicidal.
Van attempted to place the woman into treatment in a number of area hospitals, but was allegedly denied on her behalf. However, Van took a video of his efforts to obtain treatment for the woman and posted it online – which resulted in the CEO of the hospital contacting Van and admitting the woman into recovery, beginning a collaborative relationship between Van and the hospital which continues until the present day, the suit stated.
However, Sledd, of a coordinator recovery support services for co-defendant Council in their Chester County office, allegedly began a campaign of harassment, false accusations and lies against Van – which caused the plaintiff to be kicked off a number of addiction treatment websites and lose money from his nonprofit.
Despite Van securing counsel, sending a cease-and-desist letter to Sledd and following up with Sledd’s supervisors, the plaintiff says the harassment and defamation continued unabated, resulting in further damage to Van’s reputation, business and the loss of his job with Boca Recovery.
“Due to Sledd’s continuous harassing and defaming of Van, Van is unable to post on social media about any of his speaking engagements for fear that Sledd will use his position with the Council to stop Van from speaking and to interfere with any of Van’s work. If anyone puts in Van’s name for a Google search, they are met with all of the comments and defamatory statements that originated with Sledd’s numerous and continuous posts,” the lawsuit read.
On Feb. 27, counsel for Sledd filed an answer to Van Blarcom's complaint, which denied the allegations nearly in their entirety. The answer also contained no less than 15 affirmative defenses against the lawsuit, including: The plaintiffs' claims failed due to not having suffered any damages; the claims for defamation and libel are barred by truth and any alleged statements made were done with conditional privilege which was not abused; the alleged statements were not made with reckless or malice, were not defamatory or materially false, were made in good faith with reasonably belief in their truth, and were not understood to be defamatory, or about plaintiffs; the plaintiffs did not suffer any harm resulting from the alleged publication of any statements; the defendant did not interfere with plaintiffs’ contracts; the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for defamation, as they failed to identify the substance of the alleged defamatory communications.
Furthermore, defense counsel countered that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for negligence, including that plaintiffs have failed to identify any physical impact to himself, itself or to their property; the claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress failed, as the alleged conduct and/or communications were not reckless or extreme and outrageous; the defendant did not make threats to plaintiff’s employers or to plaintiff’s employment; if the defendant made any postings regarding plaintiffs, defendant has deleted, removed, or caused to be removed all postings regarding plaintiffs which he made on any website and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for attorney fees or costs, as there is no contractual, statutory or common law basis for such a claim.
Prior to settlement and for counts of defamation and libel, vicarious liability, tortious interference with contractual relations, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $175,000, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs, and an injunction against the defendants from continuing to post anything about Van and Hope on Deck or any of Van’s affiliates on any social media site, any website or any other communication.
The plaintiff was represented by Robin J. Gray in Wyomissing.
The defendants were represented by Craig Foster Turet of Curtin &Heefner in Yardley, plus Charles V. Curley and Kelle A. Kilgarriff of Halberstadt Curley, in Conshohocken.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-05633
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com