McKee V. Laurion: Defendant’s Reply To Complaint

CASE TYPE:   14. Other Civil

Court File Number 69DU-CV-10-1706

Judge Assigned: Hon. Eric Hylden

STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

David McKee, M.D., Plaintiff, V. Dennis K. Laurion, Defendant

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DENNIS K. LAURION

Defendant Dennis K. Laurion, for his Answer to plaintiff’s Complaint:

  1. Except as hereinafter specifically admitted, qualified, or otherwise explained, denies the allegations stated in the Complaint.
  1. Admits the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint.
  1. In answer to the allegations made in the first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, alleges that this answering defendant recalls plaintiff saw his father, on or about April 19, 2010.
  1. In further answer to allegations made in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, defendant admits and alleges that he submitted to various entities, including the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, a factual recitation of what defendant observed and heard concerning plaintiff s conduct in examining defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital.
  1. In further answer to the allegations made in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, defendant denies uttering any falsehood with respect to plaintiff.
  1. In answer to the allegations made in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, defendant admits communicating with various entities, including St. Luke’s Hospital, in regard to what he observed and heard concerning plaintiff s conduct in examining defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital.
  1. In further answer to the allegations made in Paragraph 4, defendant alleges that any and all statements made or submitted by him to the various entities concerning plaintiff’s treatment of defendant’s father were true, privileged, and made under such circumstances that defendant is immune from any liability to plaintiff.
  1. In answer to the allegations stated in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, defendant denies making any false statements regarding plaintiff and alleges that any and all statements made or submitted by him to the various entities concerning plaintiff s treatment of defendant’s father were true, privileged, and made under such circumstances that defendant is immune from any liability to plaintiff.
  1. In answer to the allegations made in Count I, Paragraphs 6 through 10 of the Complaint, defendant restates and re-alleges the denials and allegations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer and denies the allegations made in Paragraphs 7 through 10 of the  Complaint.
  1. In answer to the allegations made in County II, Paragraphs 11 through 15, restates and re-alleges the allegations and denials made in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer and denies the allegations made in Paragraphs 12,13, 14, and 15 of the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

  1. Defendant affirmatively alleges that statements made by him with respect to plaintiff’s treatment of defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital were and are true.
  1. Affirmatively alleges that any and all statements this answering defendant with respect to plaintiff s treatment of defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital are privileged.
  1. Affirmatively alleges that statements made by this answering defendant with respect to plaintiff s treatment of defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital are immune from liability pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 147.121
  1. Affirmatively alleges that statements made by this answering defendant with respect to plaintiff s treatment of defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital are immune from liability pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 554.03.
  1. Affirmatively alleges that plaintiff is, by this litigation, attempting to punish and dissuade defendant for exercising his right of free expression in retaliation for defendant’s communications with the Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice regarding plaintiff s treatment of defendant’s father at St. Luke’s Hospital.
  1. Affirmatively alleges that plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  1. Affirmatively alleges that plaintiff has failed to comply with the rules of civil procedure in regard to seeking leave to state a claim for punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, defendant Dennis K. Laurion prays that plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that he be awarded his costs, disbursements, and such further relief as this Court may deem just.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2010.

Laurion Reply To Complaint


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