This Internet Doctor Review Started David McKee, MD, V. Dennis Laurion, Minnesota Case 69DU-CV-10-1706

Standard

APRIL 22, 2010

[ This text is copied from Exhibits AA-358, AA-359, and AA-360 of the Minnesota Defamation Lawsuit of David McKee, MD, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Minnesota Sixth Judicial District Case 69DU-CV-10-1706, Filed June 9, 2010. ]

Reviewer: Dennis Laurion

Submitted to INSIDER PAGES, HEALTH GRADES, VITALS:

My father spent 2 days in ICU after a hemorrhagic stroke. He saw a speech therapist and physical therapist for evaluation. About 120 minutes after my father transferred from ICU to a ward room, Dr. McKee walked into a family visit with my dad. He seemed upset that my father had been moved. Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.” When we gaped at him, he said, “Well, 44% of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option. My father mentioned that he’d been seen by a physical therapist and speech therapist. Dr. McKee said, “Therapists? You don’t need therapy. He pulled my father to a sitting and asked him to get out of bed and walk. When my father said his gown was just hanging from his neck without a back, Dr. McKee said, “That doesn’t matter.” My wife said, “It matters to us; let us go into the hall.” Five minutes later, Dr. McKee strolled out of the room. He did not talk to my mother or myself. When I mentioned Dr. McKee to a friend who is a nurse, she said, “Dr. McKee is a real tool.


 

[ In January 2011, Defendant Laurion was deposed about his submissions to Insider Pages, Health Grades, and Vitals. That deposition transcript became an Exhibit in the Minnesota Defamation Lawsuit of David McKee, MD, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Minnesota Sixth Judicial District Case 69DU-CV-10-1706, Filed June 9, 2010. ]

LAURION: I originally thought I had posted the same paragraph on all four of them. However, when I went back to look a couple of days later, it was only posted on two of them.

TANICK: Well, the next thing, I take it, is you posted on somewhere.

LAURION: Yes

TANICK: Okay.

LAURION: I posted on two of those Web sites.

TANICK: All right. And you thought you posted on four. Right?

LAURION: Yes.

TANICK: What accounts for that discrepancy?

LAURION: I don’t know, but when I went back to look a couple of days later, there was no remark on DoctorScorecard, and when I wrote to ask the sites to delete them, HealthGrades wrote back something to the effect that “You must be mistaken. We don’t accept narratives. All you could have done is filled out the number of stars.”

TANICK: All right. So you think your posting only appeared on InsiderPages and Vitals?

LAURION: Yes.

TANICK: Didn’t you have to enter the two other ones too? You thought you did at least?

LAURION: I thought I had, but apparently was mistaken.

TANICK: Okay.

TANICK: Well, if I understand you correctly, you’re telling us that this was posted on InsiderPages. Com, Doctors  Vitals, and you thought you posted it on the other two, but those apparently didn’t get on there, according to what you know?

LAURION: It was actually only posted on Insiders and –

TANICK: Vitals?

LAURION: Vitals.

TANICK: Okay, and I take it the reason you were drawn those two web sites is because – after Googling his name –

LAURION: Yes.

TANICK: – it came up that he was listed on those two. Right?

LAURION: He was listed on all four of them.

TANICK: On all four? Right. Was he listed on anything else?

LAURION: I think he was, but I didn’t go any farther than the first four.

LAURION: I looked at the sites to see if my comments were posted.

TANICK: And they were posted on two, but not the other two. Right?

LAURION: Exactly.

TANICK: When you did your posting on the three – or the two Web sites that you say you posted, InsiderPages and Vitals.com. Right?

LAURION: Okay.

TANICK: I think you told us what prompted you to put the postings on Vitals and InsiderPages, but what was your purpose in doing it?

LAURION: In doing what?

TANICK: In posting – in making those postings about your encounter with Dr. McKee. You told us, I think, that you said you saw he had a profile there and he was kind of mediocre, and that kind of prompted you to put something on there. But what was your purpose? What was your goal or objective?

LAURION: I think it was simply to state a case of bad behavior from that individual while sticking to not causing any conclusions. I didn’t make any reference to his skill as a doctor, but I –

TANICK: Well – go ahead.

LAURION: – felt the site exists for that purpose.

TANICK: For what purpose?

LAURION: If you see a doctor, you can go there and rate him. You can tell good things about him and you can tell bad things about him.

TANICK: And you told bad things?

LAURION: I told that one episode. I didn’t make any predictions or characterizations.

TANICK: Fair enough.


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