OUTPATIENT SURGERY MAGAZINE: Person With A Grudge And A Keyboard Can Wreak Havoc On Physician’s Reputation

Standard

December 1, 2011

“Physician Fights Internet Vendetta by Patient’s Son; Claims that remarks posted to physician rating sites harmed reputation.”

Leigh Page, OUTPATIENT SURGERY MAGAZINE

Business Reviews

One person with a grudge and a keyboard can wreak havoc on a physician’s reputation simply by going onto the plethora of physician rating websites and trashing him. Sometimes physicians sue these guerilla commenters for defamation, but a lawsuit generates yet more bad publicity and can be challenging to win. A possible lesson here: When a few offhand remarks by a physician make a patient or family member so mad that he wants to carry out an internet vendetta, a simple apology by the physician might diffuse the situation.

Last year, David McKee, MD, a neurologist in Duluth, Minn., walked into the hospital room of an 83-year-old patient who had just been moved out of the ICU after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke. The patient’s family, gathered in the room, was on edge and had never met Dr. McKee before. The neurologist later recalled that he tried to introduce a little levity into the situation by telling the patient he had “to spend time to find out if you were transferred or died,” according to court documents. The patient’s son, Dennis Laurion, recalled Dr. McKee commenting: “44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.” Dr. McKee denies saying this. Mr. Laurion also accused Dr. McKee of leaving the room scowling, without saying a word to the family, but Dr. McKee insists he did address the family.

The younger Mr. Laurion felt the doctor’s behavior was extremely insensitive to his ailing father. According to Dr. McKee, the son then made more than 100 web postings criticizing the neurologist’s bedside manner and describing the hospital room encounter. Mr. Laurion also wrote that an unnamed woman who had allegedly worked with Dr. McKee called him “a real tool.” Dr. McKee hired a private investigator to track down this woman but failed to do so. He now asserts that Mr. Laurion fabricated the remark, according to the neurologist’s attorney, Marshall H. Tanick.

Dr. McKee attempted to defend himself against Mr. Laurion’s online attack. “This site, and similar sites are an unreliable way of assessing physicians,” he wrote in a statement on the “Vitals” website. “They are easily abused and virtually no surveillance is undertaken by the site to prevent this. … Mr. Laurion’s entries have been dishonest and those of his acquaintances pure fiction. Vitals should not allow anonymous comments and should make it easier for physicians to remove blatantly false or fictional ones.”

Dr. McKee also filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Laurion, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. Mr. Tanick says his client “suffered a diminution of referrals and of regard for himself in the community.” But a judge dismissed the lawsuit before it reached trial, finding none of Dr. McKee’s accusations could be considered defamation. For example, the judge said, the description “a real tool” is definitely negative but is too vague to be defamatory. “Taken as a whole, the statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man’s description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by his physician,” the judge concluded.

Dr. McKee has appealed the dismissal. A day before the hearing, Mr. Tanick and Mr. Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly, spoke to OUTPATIENT SURGERY MAGAZINE. In light of the negative publicity stirred up by the lawsuit, Mr. Tanick said, it is preferable to quietly settle such cases, but Mr. Laurion refused to accept a settlement offer.

Mr. Tanick said three-fourths of the defamation cases he sees involve comments on the internet, but they are not easy to prove. Online ratings often involve opinions, and “opinions aren’t defamatory,” he said.

Mr. Kelly said his client always identified himself in his online postings and did not post anonymously. While he conceded that his client may have made some rude comments, “rude speech is not defamatory.” Mr. Laurion was simply trying to describe his own impressions of his dealings with Dr. McKee, Mr. Kelly said. “We all know of physicians who are technically very skilled but do not have a great deal of sensitivity.” Could an apology from the doctor have averted the internet dispute and subsequent lawsuit? “I don’t know for sure, but I think so,” said Mr. Kelly.

SOURCE

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