Kelly v. Diocese of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tex.Ct.App.1992). A qualified privilege protects statements made in good faith on a subject matter in which the author has an interest or with reference to which he has a duty to perform to another person having a corresponding interest or duty. Houston v. Grocers Supply Co. 625 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.Ct.App.1981). In order to overcome the defense of privilege and impose liability for libel and slander, Halbert must prove that Wade acted with malice. Id. at 801. The falsity of a statement is insufficient to prove malice. Steams v. McManis, 543 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Tex.Civ.Ct.App.1976). Under Texas law, both of the statements made by Wade would be covered by a privilege. See Mayfield v. Gleichert, 484 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Civ.Ct.App.1972) (<HOLDING>); Zarate v. Cortinas, 553 S.W.2d 652
holding that a published hospital report was privileged because the reports were asked to be made and read only by the requesting party holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians