Physicians Practice: Suing For Defamation Over A Negative Online Review

Standard

March 27, 2015

“Suing For Defamation Over A Negative Online Review”

Sara Kropf, Physicians Practice

In 2010, Dennis Laurion brought his father to [ St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth, Minnesota ] following a stroke. He found the bedside manner of the treating neurologist, David McKee, rude. After his father was discharged, Laurion posted several negative online comments about his interaction with McKee. In response to the posts, McKee took an unusual step: He sued Laurion for defamation. After four years of litigation, however, the doctor’s lawsuit was dismissed. He had lost.

There are dozens of websites where people like Laurion can post online reviews of doctors. Search for “review doctors,” and you will find sites such as Healthgrades, ZocDoc, and RateMDs. On RateMDs, for example, doctors are rated on staff, punctuality, helpfulness, and knowledge. Each of the websites allows users to post open-ended comments about the doctor as well. These online comments can pose a serious danger to a doctor’s reputation.

If you think prospective patients are not relying on online review sites, think again. According to a 2012 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 59 percent of individuals seeking a physician for themselves found online reviews of doctors to be “somewhat” or “very” important when choosing a doctor. There can be little doubt that online reviews affect your practice, both positively and negatively.

These review websites can provide a trove of helpful information to potential patients. But what if the reviews are false? What if a patient posts misleading statements about your practice or your medical skills? What if negative reviews lead to a decline in new patients or loss of current patients from your practice? What can you do?

One option is to sue for defamation, just as McKee did. Before you take this step, however, you should understand the benefits and risks of doing so. This post is the first in a series exploring how physicians can respond to negative online reviews. We will examine what steps can be taken before suing for defamation, the risks involved in suing a patient for defamation and some of the barriers to winning a defamation case, including the challenges of proving damages.

For now, let’s start with the basics. What is defamation? Defamation is a broad term that includes both slander (when the defamatory words are spoken) and libel (when the defamatory words are written). So, if your patient smears your reputation during a community meeting, you may have a slander claim. If he does so in a post on RateMDs, then you may have a libel claim. They both fall under the legal cause of action for “defamation.”

To win a defamation case, you must prove six things:

  1. There is a “published” statement. This means only that the “speaker” (who will be the defendant) made the statement to at least one other person. It is a very low barrier and easy to prove.
  2. The defamatory statement is about you. This is usually not an issue because the speaker will identify the doctor by name. As long as a reader could identify the doctor by the words used in the statement (for example: the “senior doctor in the dermatology practice in the Harris Building in Topeka”), then you have proven this element.
  3. The statement is false. A true statement is never defamatory.
  4. The statement is a statement of fact, not opinion. This element is usually the hardest one to prove. The First Amendment protects patients who are only expressing their opinions or merely insulting someone. So, it is not defamation if someone posts that you have a “rude bedside manner” or possess “terrible surgical skills” or are an “idiot.”
  5. The speaker was either negligent in making the statement or acted with malice, depending on the type of case. “Malice” in this context means that speaker knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth of the statement. For example, if a speaker wrote that “Dr. John Doe does not have a medical license,” after visiting the doctor’s office and seeing the framed license on the wall, this would satisfy the malice standard.
  6. You suffered some provable damages. The harm must have been caused by the defamation and not any other reason. This can be difficult to prove in the online review context.

Each part of a defamation claim can present an independent obstacle to success in court. In the next post, we will explore the steps you can take to remove a negative review from a website, either through obtaining a court order in a defamation lawsuit or by contacting the website and patient directly.

Sara Kropf has been a trial lawyer for over 15 years and handles both civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. She was a partner at a large, international firm before founding Law Office of Sara Kropf in 2013. She is licensed in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, and has handled cases across the country. Sara was lead counsel in a landmark defamation case involving defamatory reviews on Yelp.. She can be reached at sara@kropf-law.com.

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