The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled Wednesday former nurses at Carney Hospital can proceed with a defamation lawsuit over the way the hospital handled the reorganization of a psychiatric unit in 2011, but that they can't question then President Bill Walczak's comments to the Boston Globe.

In its ruling, the court said Walczak's comments in two Globe articles after he reorganized the hospital's unit for teens with psychiatric issues were protected under a state law intended to protect citizens' rights to "petition" the government, in this case indirectly, through newspaper articles, and so it tossed that part of the lawsuit.

The comments to the Globe were likely to have reached the eyes of state regulators, who were keeping a close eye on the hospital after a staffer in the unit was accused of sexual assault against a patient. The hospital hired former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger to recommend a course of action, and he urged a complete shakeup of the unit.

In contrast, the court said e-mail Walczak sent hospital staff after the firings were not intended to reach state regulators and so could be questioned during a defamation trial, the court ruled.

In its decision, the court wrote, "With the agencies continuously monitoring the situation and the unavoidable publicity that developed around it, the media essentially became a venue to express the perspectives of each side; as such, the Boston Globe articles were available to, and likely considered by, the regulatory agencies."

A lower-court judge who declined a hospital request to toss this part of the suit "erred in concluding that the statements to the Boston Globe were not protected activity on the ground that the Steward defendants, both directly and through Harshbarger, 'already were in communication with the agencies regarding their investigation,' " the court continued.

"Walczak's statements in the Boston Globe describing the actions the hospital had taken -- particularly where there was ongoing public pressure on the agencies to close the unit and to withdraw the hospital's license to operate the unit -- were important affirmations, as they came from the president of the hospital himself in support of the urgent goal of influencing DMH to preserve the license, and were thus legitimate protected activity. ... In attempting to reach and educate through the media the opponents in the public who had been pressuring the agencies to revoke the license, Walczak's statements possessed the characteristics of petitioning activity."