Complaint: David McKee, MD, Plaintiff, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Defendant

[ This is copied from Exhibits RA-018 through RA-021 of David McKee, MD, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Minnesota Sixth Judicial District Case 69DU-CV-10-1706, Filed June 9, 2010.]

MAY 18, 2010

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS   SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

David McKee, M. D., Plaintiff

v.

Dennis K. Laurion, Defendant

COMPLAINT

Case Type: Defamation Court File No __________________

1. Plaintiff David McKee, M. D. , for his Complaint against Defendant Dennis Laurion, states and alleges as follows: Plaintiff McKee is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Minnesota, resides and works in Duluth, St. Louis County, Minnesota, and practices neurology in Duluth, St. Louis County, Minnesota.

2. Defendant Laurion is an individual who resides in Duluth, St.Louis County, Minnesota.

3. On or about April 20, 2010, Plaintiff McKee furnished medical services to a relative of Defendant. On or about April 22, 2010, Defendant Laurion published to third parties on the worldwide internet various false statements of fact concerning Plaintiff’s treatment of a relative of Defendant (relative of Defendant is sometimes hereinafter referred to as “the individual”). The false statements of fact include, but are not limited to, the following: that Plaintiff “seemed upset” that the individual had been transferred from an ICU (intensive care unit) to a ward room; that Plaintiff stated to the individual that he had to “spend time finding out if you were transferred or died;” that he further stated that “44% of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option;” and he told the individual that “you don’ t need therapy;” that he told the individual that “it doesn’t matter” that the gown was hanging from the neck, without any back ; that Plaintiff strode out of the room without talking to the individual’s wife or Laurion; that he subsequently stated that “Dr. McKee is a real tool!”

4. On or  about   April   22,   2010,   Defendant   further   published additional false statements to various third parties, including, but not limited to, the American Academy of Neurology; the American Neurological Association; two physicians in Duluth; the Lake Superior Medical Society; the Minnesota Quality Improvement Organization; Office of Quality Monitoring of the Joint Commission; the Patient’s Action Network of the American Medical Association; St. Louis County Public Health & Human Services Advisory Committee; Senior Ombudsman; St. Luke’ s Hospital; Minnesota Department of Health Office of Health Facility Complaints; and , Minnesota Medical Association.

5. The statements made to these individuals included some of the same statements as in other communication set forth in Paragraph 3, above, as well as additional false factual statements, including that Plaintiff “blamed” the patient for loss of Plaintiff’s time; when he exited the room where Defendant’ s relative was located , Plaintiff was “scowling,” that Plaintiff regarded Defendant’s relative as a “task and a charting assignment;” that he did not treat Defendant’s relative with “dignity.”

COUNT I. DEFAMATION

6. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the above as if fully set forth herein and further states as follows:

7. The aforesaid statements cause harm to the reputation of Plaintiff insofar as it has a tendency to lowers his regard in the eyes of others.

8. The aforesaid conduct constitutes defamation per se.

9. As a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including harm to reputation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.

10. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $50,000.

COUNT II. INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS

11. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the above fully set forth herein and further states as follows:

12. The aforesaid conduct by Defendant was done intentionally, knowingly, and without authorization.

13. The aforesaid conduct by Defendant interferes with Plaintiff s business activities.

14. As a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered  damages, including potential loss of income , emotional distress, pain and suffering in an amount in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.

15. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David McKee requests the following relief against Defendant Dennis K. Laurion:

1. A judgment in a reasonable amount in excess of $50 ,000 for defamation.

2. A judgment in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000 for interference with business.

3. Leave to amend the Complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.

4. Awarding pre-judgment and post judgment interest.

5. Awarding to  Plaintiff his reasonable costs and disbursements incurred herein.

6. Such other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable.

Date: May 18, 2010

MANSFIELD, TANICK & COHEN, P.A.

/ S /

Marshall H   Tanick

220 South Sixth Street, # 1700

Minneapolis, MN   55402-4511

(612) 339-4295

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Web Posting

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply To Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Cease And Desist Letter To Defendant Dennis Laurion

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Complaint To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint To Sixth Judicial District Duluth Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Response To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Answer To Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Deposition Extracts

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances Before Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances After Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony In Response To Questions By Marshall Tanick

Affidavits By Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Parents

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Motion To Oppose Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Memo In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Sixth Judicial District Court’s Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Appeal Of Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Order To Strike Portion Of Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Announces Decision

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Petition For Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Opposition To Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Supreme Court Decision On David McKee MD V. Dennis K. Laurion

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2010

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2011

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2012

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2013

McKee V Laurion Is A Textbook Case

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s