Outpatient Surgery Magazine: Surgeon Sues Patient for Damning Online Review


Surgeon Sues Patient for Damning Online Review

Daniel Cook

Outpatient Surgery Magazine

May 29, 2012

A Florida plastic surgeon thinks anonymous comments made by a former patient on a physician rating website crossed the line between opinion and malicious intent, and he’s fighting back with a defamation lawsuit.

Armando Soto, MD, reacted strongly to postings made on RateMDs.com about a botched breast augmentation procedure he allegedly performed in 2011, according to a published report. He wants the comments removed and is seeking $49,000 in damages.

His defamation lawsuit was originally filed in Virginia because that’s where he and his attorney, Domingo Rivera, thought the complaints originated. However, he plans to drop that suit and file in Florida since subsequently discovering a school teacher in his home state might have posted the negative comments. He believes the teacher posed as several unhappy patients, adding numerous damning remarks on the site.

Mr. Rivera says his client’s lawsuit addresses the difference between opinion and defamatory speech. For example, a post stating that Dr. Soto did “a poor job” is opinion, he says, while comments about breast unevenness or extra scarring are defamatory if they are not true. He believes unhappy patients should return to their physicians to have post-op issues fixed, and accuses the patient in this case of conducting a vendetta against Dr. Soto’s reputation, which the lawsuit is angling to repair and protect.

David Muraskin, a Public Citizen attorney representing the patient, said in the news report that the lawsuit could squelch freedom of speech. He could not be reached for additional comment.


Armando Soto MD

Other Doctors Who Sued For Defamation

Fox News: Florida Doctor Sues Patient For Posting Bad Review Online

Florida Doctor Sues Patient For Posting Bad Review Online 

Fox News, Orlando, Florida

May 24, 2012

A Florida plastic surgeon has filed a lawsuit against one of his patients for posting an unfavorable review of him online.

Dr. Armando Soto said he filed the suit to protect his reputation and his business. The unnamed patient allegedly trashed his services online at the website “Rate MDs,” posting complaints about a breast surgery.

Attorney Larry Walters said although the patient may be covered by free speech laws, this protection will only apply if the criticism is valid. “You cannot cross the line and make false statement of fact about a person that causes damages to that person,” he said.

Dr. Soto said he has been in contact with the patient he filed the suit against, and they are trying to work it out. He said he believes his suit against the patient could soon be dropped.


Armando Soto MD

Other Doctors Who Sued For Defamation

Medical Reputation Management: Orlando Doctor Sues Patient?

Orlando Doctor Sues Patient

Patrick Chavoustie, CEO

Omni Medical Marketing


I read a story about a Doctor in Orlando that is suing a patient. This brought up many interesting questions and a few conversations with plastic surgeons late last night concerning medical reputation management.

How much damage can be caused by just a few bad reviews?

I believe it is said, if you have a happy customer, they will tell one person, if you have a disgruntled customer, they will tell 20. This has changed quite a bit as we all know. Today, I would estimate that maybe 1 out of 100 happy customers will post a review for you online, without being asked to do so. Since this customer is “happy,” there will be a positive review. On the other hand, one out of seven unhappy customers will post a negative review online.

Five hundred happy patients turns into 5 positive reviews. Thirty  unhappy patients turn into 4-5 negative reviews. Keep in mind the multiplier is huge here, as hundreds if not thousands of people will read these reviews each month.

Who reads reviews anyways?

Over the last few months I have spent quite a bit of time looking at reviews for various businesses. I am getting married in June, and planning the wedding has led me to read a large number of online reviews.  I have looked at limousine company reviews. It’s a shiny car, but will it be clean for us? Check reviews. Need to hire a band. They sound good, but will they show up on time? Check reviews. I bought a new house last month. It’s time to hire a moving company.  Is their quote real, or will I get a surprise $400 gas surcharge? Check reviews…  I, like most people, would be much more inclined to “warn” other people after having a terrible experience with a business.

What if most of my reviews are positive?

One thing I noticed was how much weight I put on the negative reviews compared to the positive reviews. The negative reviews just seemed to scream out, “pay the most amount of attention to me!”  The positive reviews seemed to stay very quiet, almost whispering, “These were posted by the owner, these are fake!” Almost every time I read a review for a moving company, a doctor, or even a stereo receiver at Best Buy, I always take a peek at the 5 star reviews, but I always click on the one star reviews as well.  There is no doubt in my mind that one negative review outweighs 3-5 positive reviews.

Fake reviews, Astro-Turfing , and why anonymous reviews should be stopped!

I hear horror stories all the time from medical practices claiming they have been the victim of unfair, unwarranted, and possibly illegal fake reviews. I spoke with a plastic surgeon, who first called us for SEO, and then explained that his ex-girlfriend went online and posted dozens of fake reviews as a way of “getting back at him.”  I also spoke with a client who had a number of negative reviews all based on the same procedure that he didn’t, doesn’t, and never has performed.  He has his suspicions in regards to which one of his competitors wrote the reviews.

I am all for free speech, I believe if you have something negative to say about someone, you should have no problems putting your name next to it. People are being seriously hurt by fake reviews and Astro-Turfing.

Is suing the patient a smart form of medical reputation management?

While it is certainly one form, it’s most likely not the best form. I am not sure if suing a patient is the right thing to do or not. While I do not believe people should allow themselves to be walked all over, suing could bring personal damages to a whole other level. The number of people checking reviews is greater than ever. Anytime someone searches the name of this doctor, this story is going to come up.  Along with this story, search results will also show this negative review, as well as any other negative review that may have been made concerning this doctor.   This only draws more attention and increases exposure. Google’s algorithm and search engine optimization is set up in a way that this story will almost certainly dominate the web for the year to come. Not only will people see the negative reviews in my opinion, they may choose to not voice their opinion for fear of being sued.

What can I do to protect my practice?

Finding out what is being said about you and where it is being said is obviously the first step. It is best to bring in the staff to help you tackle this task that should take less than an hour. I suggest using staff, not only to save you time, but to inspire them to produce a level of service within your office that will proactively limit any future negative reviews.

In order to make sure you are getting actual real time results, I suggest you clear your cookies and cache on each computer that will be used to search. If you have been doing searches related to your practice such as “Plastic Surgeon Orange County” or “Sports Medicine practice St. Louis,”  you may end up with the results you have recently reviewed, as opposed to the real-time results.

I suggest you use terms such as your name and every variation of it (i.e. Dr. Jones MD, Dr. Jones, Dr. David Jones, and Dr. David Jones MD). Also use the name of your practice, your phone number, and your address as key words in your searches. Run each one of these searches in Bing, Yahoo, and Google. Each of these search engines has its own algorithm and will produce different search results. Medical, Plastic Surgery, and Dental SEO do not return the same results in each search engine. Bing may miss something that Yahoo picks up, etc.

Once you have identified any negative reviews take note of them. Keep track of each by cutting and pasting the link into a Word file or an email you send to yourself.

Keep informed on what is being posted about you…but don’t pay for it! There are many services that, for a monthly fee, will monitor what is being said about you online. As far as I am concerned this is a waste of money. For absolutely no cost, you can set up Google Alerts. While it is important to know that Google will not always return everything that is being said about you, neither will any pay-for services company that I am aware of. However, Google will pick up most, and it is an absolute must that you get going with this right away. It always eats at me when people pay for services they can receive for free.  If you are not sure how to set up these alerts, shoot me an email and I will be more than happy to show you.

At this point, hopefully you have identified any negative reviews or comments posted about you and or your practice online. At the same time, hopefully you and your staff have identified the patients who posted each of these reviews. If you have yet to identify the individuals,  give another go at it. Most likely the same comments that were posted online were articulated to someone in your office. 

I know who posted this comment, now what?

Do your best to contact them personally. A simple phone call will work best. Ask then to go over their issue with you over the phone. If it warrants setting up an appointment to visit with them in person, make sure you are not late for this appointment and plan to spend as much time as needed to hear the patient out. Time equals love for most of us. We feel good when people are willing to spend time with us. At the least, it will show you care. 

Do your best to make the situation right! This does not mean giving them anything for free, however it might mean giving out your cell phone for any reason they may need it. It may also mean offering them a discount on future services. We have all had terrible customer experiences. Some of these experiences only made us more frustrated, while others made us feel much better and created an environment for us to want to continue doing business with the company or individual who originally upset us. Only you know the best way to right a situation. Using your own experiences will give you a good idea of how to turn the situation around.

Ask that the review/comments be removed or that an additional comment be made. I would never suggest you ask a patient to remove a negative medical review right away. Give it a little time and then ask. Frame your request with “can you do me a personal favor?” Everyone loves hearing a professional ask them for a favor. It makes us feel good; like we matter, and of course your patients do matter!

I have no idea who wrote the review.

If you don’t know who wrote the review, there are two steps to take. Both are equally important.

1)      Contact the webmaster of the site. E-mail is usually the only option. Inform them you have tried to identify the patient, however you are unable to do so. Suggest that the review or comments are from one of your competitors or a disgruntled former employee. Ask them if they are able to identify the reviewer. Mention you do not need their personal information, but rather that you only want to make sure it is a real person with a real issue. 

2)     Post a rebuttal! Posting your own comments will show other readers that you care! Make sure to be non-confrontational in your comments. Ask the person to contact you at your office so you can make the situation right and hear out their issue. If I see a negative review but see a well written thoughtful, caring rebuttal, I actually give more value to it then I would to a positive review in the first place. The value here can be tremendous! Everyone makes mistakes, lets people down, and flat out drops the ball from time to time. This we all know. What we appreciate and respect is when someone takes action to make it right!


Armando Soto MD

Other Doctors Who Sued For Defamation

Plastic Surgeon Sues Patient for Posting Negative Review


May 29, 2012

“Plastic Surgeon Sues Patient for Posting Negative Review”

 John Washam, Talk To The Manager Blog

Restaurants and hotels aren’t the only categories of service business that are vulnerable to online reviews.  Healthcare providers also are wary of reviews appearing on medical review sites such as Vitals, Rate MDs, and Rate Your Doctor.

Dr. Armando Soto is claiming defamation against a patient who posted a negative review on Rate MDs.

Domingo Rivera, attorney for Dr. Soto, said the patient’s comments on Rate MDs aren’t opinions protected by the First Amendment but a “malicious campaign of unlawfully defaming and spreading lies” about his client and business.

The counsel for the unnamed patient warned the suit could have a chilling effect on users of sites such as Angie’s List, Yelp, Rate Your Doctor, and others that rate professionals and services.  “The terror created by this lawsuit will squelch freedom of speech,” said David Muraskin, a Public Citizen attorney representing the defendant.

In 2011, the anonymous online comments about breast-augmentation surgeries claimed that the doctor had botched the work, saying there was unevenness, extra scarring and other issues. The doctor’s lawyers claim those statements are defamatory because they aren’t true, while other comments about the “end result is horrible” is an opinion.

David Muraskin of the Public Citizen Litigation Group said, “If a patient is unhappy, they can use constructive criticism, or return to the surgeon to fix it.”

Rivera said. “This person has a vendetta, and my client has to use the court system to remedy that.”

The Henrico County Circuit Court granted Soto a subpoena in April to force Comcast to divulge the Internet IP address, identity, mailing and billing addresses of the person who posted the comment.

Rivera said he most likely will drop that subpoena because he has independently learned that patient is an Osceola County schoolteacher. He suspects she has posted multiple comments on the website, posing as another unhappy patient. He did not identify the patient and has not transferred the lawsuit to Florida yet.

“It is almost a certainty that we will file there,” he said. “This person will be dealt with.”

Rivera said Soto wants the posts removed and is seeking $49,000 in damages.


 Dr. Armando Soto: Free Speech is Great; Defamation is Illegal; but Patient Satisfaction is King.

Here are the facts of this situation.

Some time ago, we became aware of a collection of internet posts that bore no resemblance to truthful patient experiences in our practice. There have also been, over the years, a small number of other negative opinions expressed, with which we were not as concerned, understanding that we can never make everybody happy, and that the people involved were not going to be possible for us to please, no matter how hard we tried.

However, because this particular collection of posts included multiple untruthful representations of fact, because they include duplication of complaints with subtle differences and different usernames to make it look as though written by multiple people (when in reality a single person was responsible), and because some included no truth at all (again, in statements represented as fact), we felt it important to pursue the matter.

Why?  Well, first of all, because as a professional who takes his relationships with his patients and their complete satisfaction as seriously as I do, it was important to me that I do everything possible to understand (for the benefit of this individual as well as my practice) why this person had not expressed any legitimate complaints to me directly and allowed us to guide her through a thoughtful and appropriate course of action prior to posting untruthful and damaging things about me on the web. The vast majority of my patients would attest, I believe, to the extreme dedication to patient satisfaction we practice in my office every day- and I believe it is evident to them that we often do so even when not in our financial best interests. In other words, we believe in doing the right thing- and did not understand why someone would do this.

Secondly, there is no one alive today that is more thankful for the opportunities, freedoms, and rights that we as Americans enjoy than me. I am a living example of The American Dream. I simply would not have been able to achieve everything I have in any other nation on Earth, and I am deeply grateful for that. For the legal eagles at Public Citizen to say that I am trying to “squelch free speech” is ignorant, offensive, and more importantly, untrue.

I believe all of our constitutional rights- including the right to free speech are valuable and ought to be protected- but as an American who HAS worked so hard to accomplish everything I have, I also believe (just as strongly) that we have a right to protect our good names from libel and slander. These rights are no less important.

I believe the zealous, if misguided people at Public Citizen have an ax to grind on this issue of internet free speech, and would like to use me as their stone… but this is simply not my issue. I have no problem with free expression of opinion. Just libel and slander. Thank God that in America, we recognize a difference.

The reason all of the people who complained on the web about me were named in the suit is because it was necessary to do so in order to identify this one person. It is also required that damages requested be stipulated- but our goal was never to attempt to recover money. Our goal was to identify the person involved, come to an understanding of the causes of her behavior, and bring light to the truth, while hopefully recovering a more healthy doctor-patient relationship and achieving her satisfaction.

Experience has shown that the most vocal and happy clients/patients of any business are those who may have been initially displeased and were then won over by the establishment’s skills at recovering their satisfaction and trust. It has been our goal to have this opportunity with this person, and I am pleased to say we are on our way to achieving this end.

I have no problem with the occasional patient expressing a negative opinion of me. The fact is that even a cursory review of my education, training, experience, work product, and the vast majority of prior patient experiences would reveal a level of success and accomplishment with which I believe I can be rightfully proud, and which belies the idea being pushed by the brilliant minds at Public Citizen- that I am a poorly qualified surgeon who is trying to keep the word of my incompetence from getting out somehow by suing all critics into submission.

The truth is that the lawsuit we filed had a very limited purpose- to identify the person responsible for this one particular collection of fraudulent and defamatory (because they included multiple representations of fact that could be objectively proven to be false) posts. The suit served that purpose. The patient in question, in fact, has at this point admitted to everything I describe above, and we are actively discussing a solution acceptable to all, with restoration of a healthier relationship. Which is really what good health care is all about.

To summarize, I have no problem with the reality that there are always going to be some who have a negative opinion of me as a professional, despite my best efforts. But I believe I have a right to protect my reputation when behavior crosses the line towards libel and slander. In this particular case, thankfully, the patient has admitted her wrongdoing, agreed to resolve the issues with me, and even asked that I take her back as a patient- such is her true assessment of me.

This is- for the patient, and for me, a very successful outcome.

John Washam:  I see that this has been a difficult experience for you and I’m glad that you’ve reached a resolution. So many businesses are vulnerable to online reviews and in most cases the reviewer is not held accountable. Free speech does not imply “freedom from responsibility”.  Speech can impact good people who are doing their best to run a business and provide valuable services to the community.


Similar Articles

Florida Doctor Sues Patient For Posting Bad Review Online


May 24, 2012

“Florida Doctor Sues Patient For Posting Bad Review Online”

Fox News, Orlando

 ORLANDO, Fla. –  A Florida plastic surgeon has filed a lawsuit against one of his patients for posting an unfavorable review of him online.

Dr. Armando Soto told My Fox Orlando he filed the suit to protect his reputation and his business. The unnamed patient allegedly trashed his services online at the website Rate MDs, posting complaints about a breast surgery.

Attorney Larry Walters tells My Fox Orlando although the patient may be covered by free speech laws, this protection will only apply if the criticism is valid. “You cannot cross the line and make false statement of fact about a person that causes damages to that person,” he said.

Dr. Soto tells My Fox Orlando he has been in contact with the patient he filed the suit against, and they are trying to work it out. He said he believes his suit against the patient could soon be dropped.


Similar Articles

WESH: Online Comment Prompts Lawsuit From Plastic Surgeon

May 23, 2012

“Online Comment Prompts Lawsuit From Plastic Surgeon”

WESH, Orlando, Florida


ORLANDO, Fla. —Posting comments and complaints about a business is something more people are doing in the digital age, but an Orlando plastic surgeon has filed a lawsuit against a patient who let her opinions be known online.

Dr. Armando Soto filed a lawsuit against a woman who let her feelings be known online.

According to the woman’s attorney, she made the comments on RateMDs.com. She saw Soto to improve her stomach, but her assessment was, “Wasted money, bad experience, my love handles look bigger.”

Soto responded with a lawsuit seeking $49,000 in damages. Soto also filed the lawsuit against nine other patients.

The woman’s attorney, who is with Public Citizen, a consumer watch group out of Washington, said the lawsuit is part of a scary trend. “Dr. Soto is attempting to essentially scare off people from using their First Amendment rights,” Attorney Dave Muraskin said.

But Orlando attorney Howard Marks said many professionals aren’t going to take it anymore. Although Marks doesn’t represent Soto, he said he has similar lawsuits in the hopper. He said when the comments are false and malicious, they will act. “You really have no option. You either just sit there and take it and let your reputation be destroyed, or you try and fight back,” Marks said. Marks said to think twice before making a post.

Soto said he would not go on camera, but on his blog he posted, “We prefer our patients communicate this to us directly. It affords us the opportunity to make it right.”

A representative said Soto’s office is in contact with the woman and hopes to redo her surgery and drop the lawsuit. The woman’s attorney said he had no knowledge of that.


Similar Articles

Duluth Doctor’s Claim For Defamation Based On An Online Review Reaches The Minnesota Supreme Court

FALL 2012

Duluth Doctor’s Claim For Defamation Based On An Online Review Reaches The Minnesota Supreme Court

Cassie Batchelder, Silha Research Assistant

Silha Center For The Study Of Media Ethics And Law

University Of Minnesota School Of Journalism And Mass Communication


Displeased by the treatment his father received in the hospital, Dennis Laurion took his complaint online. Laurion wrote a review of Dr. David McKee, a neurologist who treated his father at St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth, Minnesota. following a stroke, on a rate-your-doctor website.

Laurion wrote in the online review that his family was displeased with McKee’s “bedside manner.” The review read, “When I mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!’” according to a March 24, 2012 story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Laurion’s complaint focused on Dr. McKee’s “body language and comments” when he treated Laurion’s father on April 20, 2010.

McKee reportedly read the comments online after another patient alerted him to their existence. McKee responded by filing a lawsuit for defamation and sought more than $50,000 in damages in district court in Duluth. He claimed he has spent $7,000 attempting to eliminate the comments from the Internet. “It’s like removing graffiti from a wall,” McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, a partner with Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. told the Star Tribune. He argues Laurion has continued to distort the facts of the situation, both online and in complaints he has filed with various medical groups since the original online complaint. “He put words in the doctor’s mouth,” and made McKee “sound uncaring, unsympathetic or just stupid.”

In St. Louis County District Court in Duluth, District Judge Eric Hylden agreed with Laurion, writing, “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 a physician.” Hylden dismissed McKee’s lawsuit in April 2011. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. The court reversed and remanded the dismissal in January 2012, finding that some of Laurion’s comments could subject him to liability for defamation.

Laurion appealed the decision to reverse and remand the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which heard arguments on September 4, 2012. The issue in McKee’s appeal is whether statements Laurion published describing McKee’s treatment of his father are not pure opinion but, rather, factual assertions capable of being proven true or false. This is the standard the United States Supreme Court set forth in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), for what establishes opinion protected by the First Amendment.

“I argued that the posting to a website is part of the context that colors or shapes what Mr. Laurion was trying to do, and the essential nature of one of these websites is to provide subjective feedback and people get lots of subjective feedback from different perspectives and from different experiences,” John Kelly, an attorney with Hanft Fride, P.A., who represented Laurion before the Minnesota Supreme Court, told the Duluth News Tribune for a September 5, 2012 story.

“We argued to the court that Mr. Laurion published both on the Internet and to approximately 20 others, including medical organizations, false statements about Dr. McKee that disparaged his professional abilities and hurt his reputation,” Tanick, who also represented McKee before the Minnesota Supreme Court, told the Duluth News Tribune. “We asked the court to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals so that Dr. McKee has the opportunity to present this to a jury and get his day in court.”

Lawsuits like McKee’s are rare, Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law told the Star Tribune. However, Goldman said “they’ve been popping up around the country as patient review sites such as Vitals and Rate Your Doctor have flourished.” Lawsuits claiming defamation are “kind of the nuclear option,” Goldman said. “It’s the thing that you go to when everything else has failed.” Goldman tracks lawsuits healthcare providers file against online reviewers, and told the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) for the Fall 2012 issue of The News Media and The Law that, of the 28 lawsuits he has tracked, courts dismissed 16 of them, six settled, and the other six are still pending.

In one such suit, an Arizona cosmetic surgeon, Dr. Albert Carlotti III, won a $12 million verdict against a former patient in February 2012, according to a Feb. 20, 2012 post by the American Medical Association on its website. The patient wrote reviews on numerous websites and created her own website stating Carlotti disfigured her face, was not board-certified, and was being investigated by the state medical board, although no records of such investigations exist; the patient is appealing the judgment.

Online reviews of other businesses and services have resulted in lawsuits alleging defamation around the country, as well. For example, an owner of a Sarasota, Fla. computer graphics company sued a reviewer after the reviewer wrote a negative, one-star review on Yelp.com, a website that allows anyone to post reviews of a wide range of businesses. The review called the owner “a scam liar and complete weirdo,” according to a Dec. 18, 2011 report in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. A dentist in Foster City, California, filed a similar suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2008 after a patient’s parents posted a negative review on Yelp.com, according to a Jan. 13, 2009 story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Because online reviewers are subject to defamation lawsuits, Rob Heverly, assistant professor of law at Albany Law School of Union University, wrote a guide for online reviewers on Madisonian.net, a blog focused on law, technology, and culture, which features written contributions from many law professors, on April 13, 2010. “The lesson here is straight forward: if you are making statements online about another person, a business or a service, do not embellish beyond what you can show factually,” Heverly wrote. “Statements of opinion were, in the past, considered absolutely protected, but the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that opinion-statements backed by implied facts will be actionable where the facts implied are false.” The Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to release its decision in early summer.


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