Grand Forks Herald: “Duluth Doctor Appealing Judge’s Decision To Toss Out Defamation Suit”

“Duluth Doctor Appealing Judge’s Decision To Toss Out Defamation Suit” 

Grand Forks Herald 

June 25, 2011

A Duluth, Minnesota, physician whose defamation suit against a former patient’s son was thrown out of district court said he has no choice but to file an appeal. Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, said he still is being targeted in online attacks related to the lawsuit he filed in June 2010 against Dennis Laurion.

McKee, who treated Laurion’s father after he suffered a hemorrhagic stroke, alleges that Laurion made false statements about him to neurological associations, other physicians, St. Luke’s hospital and the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee, among others. He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

McKee said a sudden concentration of unfavorable critiques about him cropped up online shortly before Sixth District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed the suit. “It appears that Mr. Laurion made over 100 adverse postings on the Internet once he became aware that he was going to receive a favorable decision on the motion for summary judgment,” McKee said. “Appealing seems to me the only way to curb the activities of this malicious person.”

Laurion said he has not posted anything on the Internet about McKee since the lawsuit was filed last June. He said his lawyer advised him not to. But, because the case was thrown out, technically he could if he wanted to, he said. Laurion said he was aware there was an influx of Internet chatter about McKee after a link to a story about McKee appeared on the high-traffic website Reddit. ( *** )

Marshall Tanick, the Minneapolis lawyer who is representing McKee, said the appellate court will have a hearing before a three-judge panel in the fall or later this year. “(McKee) believes the trial judge erred in dismissing the lawsuit,” Tanick said. “He is asking the appellate court to reverse the decision and reinstate the case so that he has his day in court before a jury.”

Kenneth Laurion spent four days at St. Luke’s hospital in April 2010. John Kelly, Dennis Laurion’s lawyer, told the Duluth News Tribune last summer they didn’t feel McKee acted appropriately toward their father, and they reported it to the hospital and Board of Medical Practice.

Hylden wrote in his 18-page order dismissing the suit that the court did not find Laurion’s statements about McKee defamatory, “but rather a sometimes emotional discussion of the issues.”

SOURCE

( *** ) [A] user on Reddit posted the newspaper story. Almost overnight, dozens of “reviews” popped up on RateMDs.com and other sites with outlandish commentary on McKee, who was referred to as “the dickface doctor of Duluth.”

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

 

KZGO FM Radio: “Court Rejects Case Of Doc Who Sued Over ‘Real Tool’ Remark”

“Court Rejects Case Of Doc Who Sued Over ‘Real Tool’ Remark” 

Ben Holsen   

KZGO FM Radio 

January 30, 2013

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out the case of a Duluth doctor who sued after a patient’s son called him “a real tool” on a rate-your-doctor website.

In the court ruling, the justices noted that there was no proof that six comments made by the son were false or harmful to the neurologist’s reputation.

The unanimous opinion reversed an earlier Appeals Court decision and effectively rejects the lawsuit of Dr. David McKee, who had been in a two-year legal battle with Dennis Laurion. McKee had alleged defamation and claimed the comments interfered with his business.

Observers said the case presented an interesting battle between free speech rights and the rights of workers to protect their professional reputations.

Laurion had been upset with McKee’s bedside manner as he was treating his father after a hemorrhagic stroke in April 2010. Among the comments that Laurion posted to an online doctor review site was the assertion by a nurse friend of his that “Dr. McKee is a real tool!”

The court ruled that comment was protected by the First Amendment: “Referring to someone as ‘a real tool’ falls into the category of pure opinion because the term ‘real tool’ cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false.”

Laurion told the Duluth News Tribune, “The initial excitement has not worn off. I’m very gratified it’s all over.”

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

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion References And Precedents

Healthcare Magazine: “Bedside Manner, Office Staff Can Stem or Stir Patient Lawsuits”

“Bedside Manner, Office Staff Can Stem or Stir Patient Lawsuits” 

Kimberly K Bocelli 

Healthcare Magazine, The Business Of Healthcare In North Texas 

January 2, 2013

Bedside Manner: The Dr. Marcus Welby Factor

I have defended numerous medical malpractice lawsuits that stemmed from a single, bad conversation or interaction between a patient and his or her physician.

Even physicians and other health care providers have bad days or personal issues that seem to roll over into their work life. The problem is that patients expect the archetypal Marcus Welby physician who can turn a 20-minute visit into solutions for all of their medical and personal problems using some aspirin and a good counseling session.

With more patients and less time these days, that scenario is becoming a fond, fictional memory. Even so, health care providers need to treat every patient encounter like it’s the only one that counts. Even on their worst personal days, health care providers need to stop, count to 10, take a deep breath, and – when they walk through the exam room door – put on their best Marcus Welby face. Even personal irritability can be perceived as impatience with a patient, or even worse, insensitivity to your patient’s needs.

When discussing sensitive issues or delivering bad news, you need to consider how you would have that same conversation with your mother, son or best friend. That’s not to suggest that you need to change your personality, or not be human. What’s key is for health care providers to remember that good customer service goes a long way. Even seemingly no-nonsense physicians can establish a quality rapport with their patients, as long as the patient believes the physician is taking her concerns seriously and is attentive to her needs. Though you are an educated, trained professional, you are still providing a service, and in our fast-paced service-filled lives, patients want “service with a smile.” Remember: When patients perceive that their physician is unsympathetic, inattentive or uncaring, then legal troubles can start to brew. 

Office Staff: You Are Who You Hire

Patients spend the majority of their medical visits interacting with non-physician staff. That means physicians should be keenly aware of the roles their staff members play in patient care, and the impressions non-physician staff make on patients.

Some physicians still fall prey to the temptation of over-delegating tasks to their staff, forgetting that the Texas Medical Practice Act limits exactly how much work a physician can legally delegate. Physicians also can easily overlook patient perceptions of the office experience, including the environment, front office personnel, staff nurses and medical assistants, waiting times, cultural sensitivity and office policies. Each of these elements impacts a patient’s health care experience and how they perceive their physician. Unfortunately, many Internet physician reviews read something like this: “Love my doctor, but the staff is rude.”

Under the legal principles of agency and respondeat superior, physicians are liable for the conduct of their employees. That includes liability for any injury to a patient due to the negligence of a physician’s employees or agents. So, even if you provide outstanding care to, you may still be subject to liability based on missteps committed by staff members.

Further, a physician may also be liable for the conduct of non-employees if the physician supervises or has the right to supervise the non-employee. This is true for both the clinical and non-clinical aspects of practice. For example, physicians are responsible for ensuring that their staffs comply with billing regulations and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as acting as competent clinical providers. Not every negative staff encounter will turn into a legal issue, but it may result in the loss of a patient, which impacts your bottom line.

This all goes back to a physician’s bedside manner: Not only must the patient like you, but also your staff. If a patient perceives a receptionist, a medical assistant or a billing manager as rude, inconsiderate or apathetic to her concerns, then that perception directly reflects upon you – which can result in the loss of a patient, a bad internet review or. worse, legal action.

Remember, you became a health care professional because you love treating patients. Keep that in mind during every patient encounter and make sure your staff does the same.

REMARKS:

Vickie Pearson: You are so right, Kimberly! Our family doctor used to draw blood right there in her office; if you had an 8:30 appt, you were stuck and out of there by 8:45. Now, they have changed and we have to go to another office 2 floors up and have our blood drawn. So Bob picked up the paperwork from our Doctor at 8:25 and took it upstairs and signed in there at 8:30. At 9:00 he went up to the window and asked the young lady there when he would be called because he needed to get in to work. She had been texting and looked up like he was bothering her, motioned behind her to the nurse(?) who was eating a donut, and that person said , “Probably about 10”. Bob got furious and we left and now he’s mad at our family doctor because she has implemented this new process that appears to be run by incompetents or at the very least, totally unprofessionals. He’s even talking about getting a new doctor! It makes a huge difference with whom you have to interact!

McKee V Laurion: Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune, Updated January 30, 2013 – 9:59 PM

Finding no harm done, justices toss out lawsuit by Duluth physician. Dennis Laurion fired off his screed on a few rate-your-doctor websites in April 2010, along with some letters about what he saw as poor bedside manner by his father’s neurologist. He expected at most what he calls a “non-apology apology.”

“I really thought I’d receive something within a few days along the lines of ‘I’m sorry you thought I was rude, that was not my intent’ and that would be the end of it,” the 66-year-old Duluth retiree said. “I certainly did not expect to be sued.”

He was. Dr. David McKee’s defamation lawsuit was the beginning of a four-year legal battle that ended Wednesday when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the doctor had no legal claim against Laurion because there was no proof that his comments were false or were capable of harming the doctor’s reputation.

The unanimous ruling reverses an earlier Appeals Court decision and brings to an end the closely watched case that brought to the forefront a First Amendment debate over the limits of free speech online.

It’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him. He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts. “The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won’t notice the money I spent on this,” he said. “It’s been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress.”

He said he offered to settle the case at no cost after the Supreme Court hearing. Laurion contends they couldn’t agree on the terms of the settlement, and said he not only deleted his initial postings after he was initially served, but had nothing to do with subsequent online statements about McKee.

The lawsuit followed the hospitalization of Laurion’s father, Kenneth, for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth. Laurion, his mother and his wife were also in the room when McKee examined the father and made the statements that Laurion interpreted as rude. After his father was discharged, he wrote the reviews and sent the letters.

On at least two sites, Laurion wrote that McKee said that “44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option,” and that “It doesn’t matter that the patient’s gown did not cover his backside.”

Laurion also wrote: “When I mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!'”

McKee sued after he learned of the postings from another patient. A St. Louis County judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying Laurion’s statements were either protected opinion, substantially true or too vague to convey a defamatory meaning.

The Appeals Court reversed that ruling regarding six of Laurion’s statements, reasoning that they were factual assertions and not opinions, that they harmed McKee’s reputation and that they could be proven as false.The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing the opinion, Justice Alan Page noted that McKee acknowledged that the gist of some of the statements were true, even if they were misinterpreted.

Page added that the “tool” statements also didn’t pass the test of defaming McKee’s character. He dismissed an argument by McKee’s attorney, Marshall Tanick, that the “tool” comment was fabricated by Laurion and that the nurse never existed. Whether it was fabricated or not was irrelevant, the court ruled. “Referring to someone as ‘a real tool’ falls into the category of pure opinion because the term ‘real tool’ cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false,” Page wrote.

Marshall Tanick said the ruling could present a slippery slope. “This decision gives individuals a license to make derogatory and disparaging statements about doctors, professionals and really anyone for that matter on the Internet without much recourse,” he said.

Jane Kirtley disagreed. The professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism said the ruling stems from “an elementary principle of libel law. I understand the rhetoric, but this is not a blank check for people to make false factual statements,” she said. “Rather, it’s an endorsement that statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment.”

Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly, said the fact that Laurion’s speech was made online was inconsequential to the ruling, which treated it as a standard defamation case. “It’s almost as if things were said around the water cooler or perhaps posted in a letter to the editor,” he said. “I think the principles they worked with are applicable to statements made irrespective of the medium.” 

Content Scraper: Doctor David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, practicing at St. Luke’s Hospital, told the Duluth News Tribune he was disappointed and frustrated. “We need to change the law so someone with a personal vendetta who is going to use the Internet to make defamatory statements can be held responsible,” he said.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune said it’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him. He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.

“The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won’t notice the money I spent on this,” he said. “It’s been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress.”

McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, told the Associated Press that he and McKee plan no further appeals and that they were disappointed with the ruling. “We feel it gives individuals undue license to make disparaging and derogatory statements about these people, particularly doctors and other licensed professionals, on the Internet without much recourse,” Tanick said.

Marshall Tanick told the Star Tribune that the ruling could present a slippery slope. “This decision gives individuals a license to make derogatory and disparaging statements about doctors, professionals and really anyone for that matter on the Internet without much recourse,” he said.

In reply to an e-patients.net article “Minnesota Supreme Court sides with patient on social media defamation suit,” Attorney Marilyn Mann said, “I think McKee’s lawyer is incorrect. The case turned on standard principles of defamation law and doesn’t really break new ground.”

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism, told the Star Tribune that the ruling stems from “an elementary principle of libel law.” She said that this isn’t a blank check for people to make false factual statements. She said, rather, that it’s “an endorsement that statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment.”

According to the Duluth News Tribune, Minnesota Newspaper Association attorney Mark Anfinson, who watched the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in September, said that the justices made the right decision. Anfinson also told the News Tribune, “What this case really exemplifies is not so much legal precepts in libel law, but the impact of the Internet on the ability to publish unflattering comments about people.” Anfinson was also interviewed by Minnesota Lawyer. He said, “Anyone who knew about the case, who observed the oral arguments, and who knows something about libel law is about as unsurprised with this result as they can be. It’s about as perfunctory and routine as the Supreme Court ever gets. It was a completely straightforward application of long-settled libel-law rules.” Anfinson said the case is more significant for social commentary purposes than for its legal analysis, noting that perhaps the justices only accepted the case to fix an error of the Court of Appeals.

Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly, said the fact that Laurion’s speech was made online was inconsequential to the ruling, which treated it as a standard defamation case. “It’s almost as if things were said around the water cooler or perhaps posted in a letter to the editor,” he said. “I think the principles they worked with are applicable to statements made irrespective of the medium.”

Commenting about this case on his own blog, February 8, 2013, Aaron Kelly, internet law & defamation law attorney, said “Thanks to the First Amendment, free speech is the law of that land, and that means being able to communicate our views publicly – no matter how offensive.”

The Mankato Free Press said in February 2013: “It’s puzzling why McKee’s defamation lawsuit — filed nearly four years ago — was still in court. It’s long been established that people may spout any opinion they want without fear of being sued . . . It’s unsettling that the Appeals Court earlier ruled to allow the suit to continue.”

Mark A Fischer of Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, said on February 11, 2013, “For those who are under criticism, one of the practical consequences of bringing a defamation action is that more publicity for the accused statements is almost an inevitable result, whether the statements are ultimately found libelous or not. In other words, in weighing the pros and cons of initiating a lawsuit, all potential defamation and privacy claim plaintiffs should consider the rule of Hippocrates applicable to physicians, ‘First do no harm.’”

In his Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Eric Goldman said on February 4, 2013, “I’ve been tracking doctor v. patient lawsuits for online reviews. . . doctors usually lose or voluntarily drop these lawsuits. Indeed, with surprising frequency, doctors end the lawsuit by writing a check to the defendant for the defendant’s attorneys’ fees where the state has a robust anti-SLAPP law. Doctors and other healthcare professionals thinking of suing over online reviews, take note: you’re likely to lose in court, so legal proceedings should be an absolute last-resort option–and even then, they might not be worth pursuing.”

Dan Hinmon, the principal of Hive Strategies, wrote for Health Care Communication, on March 21, 2013, “According to the Star Tribune, McKee is now ticked off at the people who posted hundreds more negative comments about him after the story went viral. Incredulously, the story reports that McKee ‘hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from these posts.’ Yes, you read that right. After spending ‘at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral,’ McKee is considering suing the rest of the people who, exercising their right of protected speech, chimed in. I’m speechless.” 

Laurion: Although the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed David McKee MD vs Dennis Laurion, the entire experience has been distressing to my family. We were initially shocked and blindsided by “jocular” comments made so soon after my father’s stroke by somebody who didn’t know us. We were overwhelmed by my being sued after posting a consumer opinion, and we were shocked by the rapidity with which it happened. My parents would be 88-year-old witnesses. My mother and wife prefer no discussion, because they don’t want to think about it.

Conversation with my father only reminds him of his anger over this situation. My siblings and children don’t often bring it up, because they don’t know how to say anything helpful. I have been demoralized by three years of being called “Defendant Laurion” in public documents. While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member. I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. That’s not correct. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again.

The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The financial impact of being sued three years to date has been burdensome, a game of financial attrition that I haven’t wanted to play. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income – the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.

After receipt of a threat letter, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others include newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.

I’ve learned that laws about slander and libel do not conform to one’s expectations. I’ve read that online complaints are safe “if you stick to the facts.” That’s exactly the wrong advice. I did not want to merely post my conclusions. I wanted to stick to my recollection of what I’d heard. I don’t like to read generalities like “I’m upset. He did not treat my father well. He was insensitive. He didn’t spend enough time in my opinion.” However, such generalities are excused as opinion, hyperbole, or angry utterances. If one purports to say what happened, factual recitations can be litigated. The plaintiff must prove the facts are willfully misstated, but the defendant can go broke while waiting through the effort.

I feel that defamation lawsuits are much too easy for wealthy plaintiffs. If I were to attempt suing a doctor for malpractice, my case would not proceed until I’d obtained an affidavit from another doctor, declaring that the defendant’s actions did not conform to established procedures. In a defamation suit, there’s generally no exit short of a judge’s dismissal order – which can be appealed by the plaintiff. Being called “defendant” is terribly personal, but the civil suit path is totally impersonal. During the three years that I went through depositions, interrogatories, a dismissal hearing, an appellate hearing, and a state Supreme Court hearing; I never once spoke to  a  judge. 

Chicago Brick: The Top Lawsuits Of 2013 by Steve Kaplan, December 20, 2013

Dr. David McKee, a Duluth neurologist, was not laughing when he saw what one former client wrote about him on a doctor-rating website. The reviewer, Dennis Laurion, complained that McKee made statements that he interpreted as rude and quoted a nurse who had called the doctor “a real tool.” As these statements echoed through the Internet, McKee felt his reputation was being tarnished. He sued, and so began a four-year journey that ended this year in the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Laurion was unhappy with the way McKee treated his father, who was brought to the doctor after he had a stroke. Laurion went to several rate-your-doctor sites to give his opinion. That’s just free speech, isn’t it? It sure is, says Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly of the Duluth firm Hanft Fride. “The court held that what my client was quoted as saying was not defamatory,” he says. “I do think the Internet makes it much easier for persons exercising poor judgment to broadcast defamatory statements, however… a medium… doesn’t change the quality of a statement from non-defamatory to defamatory.”

But McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, of Hellmuth & Johnson, says no matter where it was said, defamation is defamation. “The thing that’s often misunderstood is that this was not just about free speech, but about making actual false statements,” Tanick says. “The problem is today’s unfettered opportunity to express opinion, whether or not the substance of what’s said is true or not. We need some boundaries.”

But boundaries were not on the minds of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Free speech was. Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote, “The point of the post is, ‘This doctor did not treat my father well.’ I can’t grasp why that wouldn’t be protected opinion.” As to referring to the doctor as “a real tool,” Justice Alan Page wrote that the insult “falls into the category of pure opinion because the term … cannot be reasonably interpreted as a fact and it cannot be proven true or false.”

The takeaway from this case might be the knowledge that behind any rating service lie real people with real feelings. McKee spent more than $60,000 in the effort to clear his name, as he saw it. Dennis Laurion told the Star Tribune he spent the equivalent of two years’ income, some of which he had to borrow from relatives who supplied the money by raiding their retirement funds. 

Dennis: In spite of Supreme Court disagreement and subsequent peer disagreement, Marshall Tanick is STILL saying “The thing that’s often misunderstood is that THIS WAS NOT JUST ABOUT FREE SPEECH, BUT ABOUT MAKING ACTUAL FALSE STATEMENTS. The problem is today’s unfettered opportunity to express opinion, whether or not the substance of what’s said is true or not. We need some boundaries.”

From the American Health Lawyers Association: IN THIS CASE, THE COURT FOUND THE SIX ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE THE “SUBSTANCE, THE GIST, THE STING” OF PLAINTIFF’S VERSION FOR EACH OF THE STATEMENTS AS PROVIDED IN DEPOSITION AND DEFENDANT’S VERSION ESSENTIALLY CARRIED THE SAME MEANING, satisfied the standard for substantial truth, did not show a tendency to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and lower his estimation in the community, or were incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning (e.g., when a nurse told defendant that plaintiff was “a real tool”) based on “how an ordinary person understands the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances.”

From the Business Insurance Blog: 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.”

From the Duane Morris Media Blog: The doctor said in his deposition that with regard to finding out if Mr. Laurion was alive or dead, “I made a jocular comment… to the effect of I had looked for [Kenneth Laurion] up there in the intensive care unit and was glad to find that, when he wasn’t there, that he had been moved to a regular hospital bed, because you only go one of two ways when you leave the intensive care unit; you either have improved to the point where you’re someplace like this or you leave because you’ve died.” THE COURT SAID THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE STATEMENTS ABOUT DEATH OR TRANSFER BY BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE SO MINOR THAT THERE WAS NO FALSITY IN THE WEBSITE POSTINGS. In other words, the court indicated that the allegation about the statement was true. 

Steve: People want to be treated as a human not a robot. A physician may be allowed to lie whenever to deliver bad news to patients or postpone it until finding a good time. It could minimize their problem and they will be easy to accept every news delivered.

SOURCE

DOCTOR LAWSUITS

Sandusky Register: Critical Online Reviews Can Carry Legal Risks

“Critical Online Reviews Can Carry Legal Risks” 

Sandusky Register

October 26, 2012

Dr. David McKee sued a patient’s son for defamation after critical remarks about him were posted on some rate-your-doctor websites. The Duluth neurologist’s improbable case has advanced all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is weighing whether the lawsuit should go to trial. “His reputation is at stake. He does not want to be a target for false and malicious remarks,” said his lawyer, Marshall Tanick.critical

McKee’s case highlights the tension that sometimes develops on websites such as Yelp and Angie’s List when the free speech rights of patients and their families clash with the rights of doctors, lawyers and other professionals to protect their good names. “Patients now have power to affect their businesses in ways they never had,” said Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law who studies the issue. Health care providers are “evolving how to deal with patient feedback, but they’re still in the process of learning how to do that.”

Most online reviews never provoke any response. And successful challenges to negative reviews are rare. Americans are legally entitled to express opinions, as long as they don’t knowingly make false statements. But if the two sides contest basic facts, disputes can swiftly escalate.

At issue are six of Dennis Laurion’s statements, including the account of the nurse’s name calling. McKee and his attorney say the unnamed nurse doesn’t exist, and that Laurion invented her to hide behind. Laurion maintains she is real, but he can’t recall her name.

In arguments before the court in September, Laurion’s attorney John Kelly said his client’s statements were legally protected opinion that conveyed dismay over how McKee treated Laurion’s father, who had suffered a stroke. The posts described a single visit that lasted 10 to 15 minutes.

The review said McKee seemed upset that after Laurion’s father had been moved from intensive care to a regular hospital room, the doctor “had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”

Laurion also complained that McKee treated them brusquely and was insensitive to the family’s concerns about the patient being seen in public in a gown that gaped open in the back.

In an interview, Kelly said nothing Laurion posted was defamatory — a false statement that harms a person’s reputation.

The court is expected to rule on the case sometime in the next few months.

Lawsuits over professional reviews are uncommon in part because most patients write positive reviews, Goldman said. And many states have passed laws that block the kind of lawsuits that are filed mainly to scare someone into shutting up on matters of public concern. Known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” those complaints are often forbidden by broad laws that protect criticism even if it’s wrong, Goldman said.

When health care providers do sue, they rarely succeed. Of 28 such lawsuits that Goldman tracked, 16 had been dismissed and six settled. The others were pending.

One notable exception was a Maine case in which a chiropractor sued a former patient for postings on Facebook and websites that accused him of sexually assaulting her. The courts concluded she probably fabricated her story. In June, a judge ruled that the chiropractor could legally attach $100,000 worth of the patient’s property to his claim as security pending further proceedings in the case, which remains open.

Yelp says reviewers are well within their rights to express opinions and relate their experiences. Spokeswoman Kristen Whisenand says the company discourages professionals from using what she called the “nuclear option” of suing over a negative review. She said they rarely succeed and wind up drawing more attention to the review they dislike.

Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie’s List, said people shouldn’t be afraid to post honest opinions about health care or other services. “Everyone has the right to free speech,” Hicks said. “The key here is giving your honest opinion. Honesty is your best defense. Truth is your best defense.”

Jeff Hermes, director of the Citizens Media Law Project at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said people who want to post critical reviews should think about whether they can back up their statements. And they can strengthen their position by stating the facts on which their opinions are based.

Goldman advises reviewers to remember that they are still taking a risk anytime they criticize someone in a public forum. “The reality is that we bet our house every time that we post content online,” Goldman said. “It’s a lousy answer from a societal standpoint because we need people to share their experiences so vendors will be punished or rewarded as appropriate.”

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

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion References And Precedents

Texas Medicine: Physicians Can Help Shape Their Presence On Influential Online Rating Sites

Physicians Can Help Shape Their Presence On Influential Online Rating Sites 

Joey Berlin, Associate Editor, Texas Medicine 

March 2017 

Volume 113, Number 3, Pages 33-40 

Chances are, by now, most physicians know online review sites allow patients to post a review of their doctor visit the same way they might review their car mechanic or a local restaurant.

Maybe you think review repositories like Yelp or medicine-specific review sites like Health Grades are mainly places for crabby customers or patients to complain. With that perception in mind, perhaps you think the minuses of setting up a profile on a review site outweigh the pluses, and you don’t even want to get involved in the online review racket. Or maybe you’re undecided about whether to do so.

That’s too bad because, in effect, the internet already has decided for you. You already have an online presence, and you can decide to shape it, says Nashua, N.H., internal medicine physician Kevin Pho, MD, an author and blogger who focuses on social media in health care. And, in fact, research has shown patients don’t just use online reviews to air grievances. “What these sites will do is create profile pages of every single doctor, whether these doctors want one or not,” said Dr. Pho, the founder of the health blog KevinMD.com and a scheduled speaker at TexMed 2017 May 5–9 in Houston.

A February 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article reported 35 percent of prospective patients who sought online reviews chose a physician based on good reviews from a ratings site, and about the same percentage took negative reviews as a cue to look elsewhere for their care.

If physicians aren’t aware that those profiles of them are already out there, Dr. Pho adds, “that’s going to be the first impression of them online. When patients Google their doctors’ names, there’s a possibility that these rating sites may come up first, and that will form these patients’ first impressions of the doctor. That’s why it’s imperative that they be proactive.”

Being reactive is important, too. But when physicians and practices react to something they see online ― say, a viciously critical review ― they also must be careful to react in the right way. 

Owning Your Presence And Learning The Sites

Dr. Pho and medical content strategist Susan Gay coauthored the 2013 book Establishing, Managing, and Protecting Your Online Reputation: A Social Media Guide for Physicians and Medical Practices. The book notes most review sites pull information on medical practices from commercially available databases, so those practices already will be listed on the sites without any effort from the physician to establish a presence on them.

The review sites generally operate in a similar fashion, Dr. Pho notes. Most of them allow physicians and practices to “claim” their profiles, which allows them to personalize those profiles with photos, a description of the practice, credentials, and other information. Doing so is an important piece of taking command of an online presence, Dr. Pho says.

Kyle Bickling, practice manager for Eye Institute of Austin, says the ophthalmology practice tries to give review site searchers a snapshot of the services it offers. Eye Institute’s page on Zocdoc, for example, has a practice summary, list of specialties, its in-network insurance plans, and pictures and credentials for physicians. “We want to make sure that patients know and can easily find out what sort of a practice we are, where we are, what sort of broad-picture services we offer,” Mr. Bickling said.

Although the review sites operate similarly ― usually allowing a user to leave a practice a star rating, as well as a comment ― learning some of the nuances of each can prove valuable. The directory and review site Vitals, for example, allows a profile owner to hide two negative reviews, a useful tool to negate a patient whose criticism crosses the line. The site Health Grades has a similar option available to hide reviews, says Texas Medical Association practice consultant Brad Davis. “Some of them have a do-it-yourself vault where you can put X number of items in there, whereas some of them have an appeals process for reviews, so you want to know how those sites work so you can deal with each accordingly,” he said.

Other popular medicine-specific rating sites include http://www.ratemds.com, http://www.healthcarereviews.com, and http://www.drscore.com.

If you’d rather a prospective patient’s first impression of your practice not come from review sites, you can take steps to minimize that from occurring. While search engine optimization (SEO) professionals hinge their reputations on favorably portraying a client or employer on Google, physicians and practices can potentially do some leveraging of Google on their own without any SEO expertise. The easiest way, Dr. Pho says, is to generate online content about yourself and your practice. (See “Reaching Patients Across the Web,” December 2015 Texas Medicine, pages 33–38.) He says a great way for physicians to get started is simply to establish a profile on either the general professional social networking site LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com, or the health care professional network Doximity. Great SEO-shaping potential also comes from generating content on Twitter, Facebook, or a blog, he says. “It depends on how big you want your digital footprint to be; obviously, the bigger, the better, so the more social media platforms that a doctor engages in, the bigger their online presence will be,” Dr. Pho said. “And not only will that expand their digital footprint, it’s going to push down the visibility of third-party rating sites.”

TMA recommends physicians set up Google Alerts to be notified when their name or their practice’s name is mentioned online. For more tips on managing your online presence, check out Get Social: Put Your Practice on the Social Media Map, a TMA book offering a road map for physicians looking to begin or to improve their social media experience.

TMA Practice Consulting can also help your practice make its mark online with its new Online Visibility Assessment. (See “Online Visibility.”) In July, TMA will host a modern marketing seminar that shows physicians how to properly leverage their online presence, refresh their current marketing strategy, and more. (See “TMA Modern Marketing Seminar.”) And for website and internet marketing assistance, Officite, a TMA-endorsed vendor, can help. (See “Marketing Help From Officite.”)

Reacting The Right Way

Dr. Pho offers five tips to handle online reviews:

  1. Listen to or read the review,
  2. Take the conversation offline,
  3. Read the fine print on a review site,
  4. Ask more patients to rate you online, and
  5. Don’t sue over a negative review.

Seeing what patients say can provide valuable insight into not just what they think of you but also what they think of the entire experience.”If you look at negative reviews, it’s not necessarily the doctor himself or herself,” Dr. Pho said. “It could be the support staff. It could be the nurse. It could be the medical assistant. It could be the fact that there’s not enough parking. It could be the fact that the magazines in the waiting room aren’t up to date. And it’s important for physicians to be aware of problems in a practice that they may not have been aware of previously.”

Eye Institute of Austin always tries to reach out to any patient who posts a negative review, Mr. Bickling says. “The more positive reviews we have, the shout-outs from patients about specific individuals or specific functions of our practice, it’s always great affirmation and a way for us to see that, hey, we’re doing the right things. And typically, if it’s a negative review, it may just be something where we missed the mark service-wise. It could be something as simple as we had a really long wait time one day.”

Taking the conversation offline has another implicit meaning: Don’t respond online to the treatment-related specifics of a negative review. If the physician can identify the patient who posted a scathing review, he or she can reach out privately to the patient to address and, if necessary, rectify the problem the patient had. That’s preferable to getting into a damaging, public back-and-forth that could also introduce potential patient confidentiality violations.

A ProPublica/Washington Post story last May detailed instances in which health care practices fought back against online reviews and appeared to violate HIPAA in doing so. Marisa Speed, the mother of a 3-year-old, posted a review of Phoenix’s North Valley Plastic Surgery several years ago after her son received stitches for a gash on his chin. Ms. Speed wrote that the physician “seemed flustered with my crying child” halfway through the procedure, then “ended up throwing the instruments on the floor. I understand that dealing with kids requires extra effort, but if you don’t like to do it, don’t even welcome them.”

An employee for North Valley responded online: “This patient presented in an agitated and uncontrollable state. Despite our best efforts, this patient was screaming, crying, inconsolable, and a danger to both himself and to our staff. As any parent that has raised a young boy knows, they have the strength to cause harm.”

That response prompted Ms. Speed to complain to the U.S. Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The office declined to undertake a formal investigation but sent North Valley’s privacy officer a letter asking the practice to examine the situation and ensure compliance. OCR told the practice it “may wish to remove any specific information about current or former patients from your web-blog.” OCR told Ms. Speed if North Valley “fails or refuses to take steps to address this concern,” it may need to contact her as part of a formal investigation.

Writing a quick online response to a positive review is good practice, the Online Reputation book says, but to stay HIPAA-compliant, ask patients for their permission to respond before posting.

The book says physicians can respond generally to negative reviews in a public forum without violating patient privacy laws if they’re responding to complaints about aspects of the visit, such as wait times or inadequate parking. Physicians can explain those aspects without confirming or denying that the reviewer was a patient. Also, if a physician reaches out to the patient and gets written consent, the practice can post a public response or apology, showing readers of the site that he or she is listening to patients.

Dr. Pho’s third tip, reading the fine print, essentially means knowing what the review site’s policies are so you’ll know what your options are if a disgruntled patient does something out of bounds, such as posting multiple negative reviews. As Get Social notes, some sites will allow the subject of a profile to flag reviews as inappropriate and will consider removing such reviews. “You want to report any comments that you think are suspicious because whenever patients post multiple times, that goes against the terms of service agreements for these sites,” and that can lead to the site removing the review, Dr. Pho said.

However, Mr. Davis cautions you to “pick your battles” when it comes to appealing a review. “If it’s not a good review, but it’s a legitimate concern and something that happened, I would say you have to let it go at some point,” he said. “If you start to appeal too many of them, I think you’re going to red-flag yourself. Yelp might start thinking that you’re just appealing every bad review, that there’s no validity now to what you’re saying.”

Dr. Pho says multiple studies have shown the majority of online reviews are actually positive. That’s why physicians should encourage all their patients to write one, instead of dreading it, he says. Get Social notes a 2012 report in the Journal of Medical Internet Research that found nearly half of all physicians get perfect online ratings, and Yelp reported in late 2013 that two-thirds of all reviews on its site were four- and five-star ratings. “If you ask all your patients to rate you online, chances are those reviews in aggregate will be positive and can make negative reviews more like outliers,” Dr. Pho said.

The fifth tip stresses that a physician pursuing a lawsuit over negative ratings is a high-risk, costly, and ill-advised move. Establishing, Managing, and Protecting Your Online Reputation highlights the case of Minnesota neurologist David McKee, MD, who sued over negative online comments the son of a stroke patient posted in 2009. Dr. McKee sued for defamation, claiming the poster also made false statements to the American Academy of Neurology and the American Neurological Association. A four-year legal battle concluded with the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissing the case in January 2013.

The book said Dr. McKee’s case created a media firestorm and became an example of the Streisand effect, a term for an attempt to suppress a piece of online information that actually results in the information garnering more publicity. The term derives from a Barbra Streisand lawsuit against an organization that published an aerial photo of the singer’s house.

“Whenever McKee’s name is put into a search engine, the publicity generated by his lawsuit will be featured prominently in the search results,” Dr. Pho and Ms. Gay wrote. “By suing the patient, not only is the outcome of the suit in doubt, but he actually made the situation much worse. No matter what kind of merit you think a case might have, doctors who sue patients for online ratings are going to lose in the more influential court of public opinion. Better that doctors take some slanderous lumps online, and instead, encourage more of their patients to rate them.”

What about preparing for litigation from the other side? If an online review hints that the patient is considering legal action, the Texas Medical Liability Trust recommends physicians contact their attorney and their medical liability insurance company immediately..

Encouraging Reviews

Get Social advises physicians to simply Google their own names and find out which rating sites show up at the top of the first page of that search. The physician can then consider passing out a handout or poster asking satisfied patients to post a review on one of those top sites. “All of that will leave you with a healthy balance of positive to negative online ratings,” Get Social states. “Prospective patients surfing for information about you will encounter a much more complete picture of you and your practice.”

There are still plenty of patients out there who don’t trust online reviews. The February 2014 JAMA study found that of patients who hadn’t sought physician rating sites, 43 percent said it was because of a lack of trust in the information they provide. But 59 percent of respondents said physician rating sites were “somewhat important or very important,” so being mindful of what the reviews say makes sense.

Mr. Bickling says the best way to generate good online reviews is to focus on the entire patient experience and make sure everyone in the office is working toward that goal. “You could have amazing doctors across the board who provided a phenomenal visit for every single patient every single time, 100 percent of the time,” he said. “And if that patient has a negative experience with your check-in desk or your checkout folks or your billing department or your optical department, whoever it may be, any sort of negative experience anywhere can ruin an entire visit for that patient. That’s why it’s so important to have the entire practice on board with that.”

Joey Berlin can be reached by phone at (800) 880-1300, ext. 1393, or (512) 370-1393; by fax at (512) 370-1629; or by email.

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

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion References And Precedents

Crookston Times: Doctor’s Defamation Lawsuit Heads To Jury

Doctor’s Defamation Lawsuit Heads To Jury 

Crookston Times 

January 25, 2012

Laurion posted derogatory comments about McKee’s bedside manner.

A Minnesota appeals court says a jury should decide whether a Duluth man defamed a local doctor by posting derogatory comments about his bedside manner on rate-your-doctor websites.

The appeals court Monday sent the case back to St. Louis County for trial. A district court judge had earlier ruled Dr. David McKee was not defamed by the criticism and threw out his lawsuit against Dennis Laurion. McKee wants $50,000 in damages from Laurion for posting the statements on the Internet. Judge Eric Hylden said Laurion’s comments were opinions and constituted statements that were too vague to be defamatory.

The Duluth News Tribune says Laurion was critical of the treatment his father, Kenneth, received from McKee after suffering a stroke and spending four days at St. Luke’s hospital last year.

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

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion References And Precedents

 

 

 

HEALTHCARE Business & Technology E-Newsletter: More Doctors Sue Over Bad Online Reviews

More Doctors Sue Over Bad Online Reviews 

Sam Narisi 

HEALTHCARE Business & Technology E-Newsletter 

April 2, 2013

As more people turn to the web to help them make decisions about their healthcare, more potential patients will check out online reviews about doctors. And many physicians will do everything they can to protect their reputations on the web.

In some cases, that includes taking a patient to court because of negative online reviews.

Dr. David McKee of Minnesota recently lost a court battle in which he sued a patient’s son who had written negative comments about McKee on several doctor rating websites. The negative reviews were related to comments McKee had made to the patient and his family. Though McKee claimed the online reviews hurt his reputation and his business, the court threw out the case on the grounds that the comments were true and therefore not defamatory. 

McKee isn’t the only doctor who’s gone to court recently because of negative online reviews. According to the Digital Media Project at Harvard University, there have been at least seven court cases over the past five years or so related to online reviews of doctors. Those lawsuits show how difficult it is for doctors to win. In all of those cases, patients either agreed to take down their comments to avoid a suit, or the court threw out the case.

In one of the incidents, a neurosurgery patient posted several negative comments about a surgeon online, including insinuations that the doctor was responsible for creating an unusually high risk of death for patients. But when the surgeon sued, the court threw out the case on the grounds that the patient was engaging in free speech about a public issue. The doctor was ordered to pay $50,000 in legal fees.

Most experts warn doctors against taking legal action because of negative online reviews. In addition to the potential for losing a costly legal battle, they warn that in many cases, filing a suit only brings attention to the patient’s complaints.

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

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion References And Precedents