investigation, including peer review. Also unlike Barreca, there is no evidence that Dr. Carroll shared the information contained in the Letter with anyone other than the Board — the body charged with investigating such issues. While Dr. Carroll certainly could have endeavored to conduct a more thorough investigation, “ ‘reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man ... would have investigated before publishing.’ ” Id. (quoting Caveman Adventures, 633 N.W.2d at 762). Dr. Reeder’s reliance on the Board’s ultimate dismissal of charges is also misplaced. It is true that “unfounded allegations reasonably give rise to an inference of intent to do harm to the target of those allegations.” King v. Sioux City Radiological Group, P.C., 985 F.Supp. 869, 881 (N.D.Iowa 1997) (<HOLDING>). However, Dr. Reeder’s argument ignores the
holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding prebarreca that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the absence of actual malice where investigation revealed that allegations were unfounded holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment