September 21, 2011
In Court of Appeals, Reply Brief of Appellant David McKee, MD
Dr. David McKee filed his Reply Brief of Appellant David McKee MD with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Some arguments include:
As the moving party, Defendant Laurion is not entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law.
Laurion’s attempt to conflate the burden of proof is unwarranted.
The truth or falsity of a statement is inherently within the province of the jury.
Laurion’s statements are not “substantially true.”
The statements are harmful to Dr. McKee’s reputation.
Dr. Farb, a disinterested expert, notes that the statements could cause current and prospective patients to “want to avoid [ McKee ] as a doctor because of his supposedly bad attitude and treatment.”
Laurion intended to harm Dr. McKee’s reputation, and he did.
The postings were not “removed” when requested by Dr. McKee.
Enlarge any page by clicking on it.