Business Insurance Blog: Minnesota High Court Dismisses Doctor’s Defamation Suit

Standard

FEBRUARY 4, 2013

“Minnesota High Court Dismisses Doctor’s Defamation Suit”

Judy Greenwald, Business Insurance Blog

 The Minnesota Supreme Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by a physician against a patient’s son, ruling there is no genuine dispute as to what the doctor said and did.

Image-Minnesota-Supreme-Court

A defense attorney says last week’s 6-0 ruling in David McKee, M.D. v. Dennis K. Laurion provides guidance in defamation cases.

According to the ruling, Mr. Laurion’s father, Kenneth, was admitted to St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, on April 17, 2010, after suffering a stroke. Dr. McKee, a neurologist, examined him two days later and told the patient that, “When you weren’t in (the intensive care unit), I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”

The younger Mr. Laurion cited this statement and other alleged examples of the doctor’s behavior that day in various “rate-your-doctor” websites and in letters to medically-affiliated institutions, complaining about Dr. McKee’s conduct.

Dr. McKee sued Mr. Laurion for defamation and interference with business. A judge dismissed both claims by the doctor. A state appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim alleging interference with the business, but reversed the lower court with respect to six allegedly defamatory statements the younger Mr. Laurion posted online and reinstated the case.

Image-Minnesota-Court-Of-Appeals

The appellate court ruled that the statements were actual assertions and not opinions, that there were “genuine issues of material fact” as to their falsity, and that the statements tended to harm Dr. McKee’s reputation.

However, the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed.

“Truth is a complete defense to a defamation act,” the Minnesota Supreme Court said in dismissing the case. “If the statement is true in substance, minor inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial.”

The Minnesota high court said, for instance, that Dr. McKee’s version of his comment about the intensive care unit was substantially similar to Mr. Laurion’s. “In other words, Dr. McKee’s account of what he said would produce the same effect on the mind of the reader,” the court said. “The minor inaccuracies of expression (in the statement) as compared to Dr. McKee’s version of what he said do not give rise to a genuine issue as to falsity.”

Commenting on the ruling, V. John Ella, a partner with law firm Jackson Lewis L.L.P. in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the case, said the ruling “clarified from the highest court in the state some principles” in “what is opinion and what is technically false, but substantially true.”  Mr. Ella also said that the Internet “has led to more defamation claims. This case in Minnesota should push back on that tendency a little bit” and limit the plaintiff lawsuits.

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

 

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