Some People Never Learn: The Physician Who Sued a Patient’s Son for Online Comments


flickr: GollyGforce

A four year legal battle over a patient’s right to make negative comments about a doctor in social media ended last week when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the comment was protected speech. We covered the case in an earlier blogpost.

The battle started when Dr. David McKee sued Dennis Laurion for calling him “a real tool” on physician rating sites after McKee treated Laurion’s father poorly during a hospital stay. “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,” wrote the court.

Laurion, who was forced to deplete his savings and borrow from relatives to pay for his defense, was not surprisingly relieved.

The shocker, though, was the response of McKee. 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.

How we help

Hive Strategies helps health systems create HIPAA-compliant online communities for better health, lower costs and greater loyalty.

2 replies
  1. Harry Nevus
    Harry Nevus says:

    2015 (Volume 48)

    “Recent Trends In Defamation Law: From The Straigtforward Action In Ventura V. Kyle To Unmasking An Anonymous Poster In The ‘Fuboy’ Case”

    David P. Twomey, Business Law Review, Volume 48
    Published by Husson University Bangor, Maine, for the North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association

    Internet and mobile platforms have radically changed how society consumes and shares news, opinions and other content. The Internet is now seen by some as the “Wild West” where anything goes and the preponderance of speech is either hyperbolic or acerbic, with speakers enabled to “sound off”, often with harsh and unbridled invective.

    A carry-over effect exists to cable television and satellite radio. The First
    Amendment protects freedom of speech and the long enduring right to speak anonymously in a lawful manner. However, when vigorous criticism descends into defamation, constitutional protection is no longer available.

    This paper presents, in a current context, a discussion of the elements and defenses in civil defamation cases. It then presents the special issues regarding online defamation cases including identifying anonymous posters of defamatory statements through nonjudicial and judicial actions. Further it identifies a framework for determining whether a statement is protected vigorous criticism or defamation, with true facts and pure opinions broadly protected and mixed opinions susceptible to its speaker bein unmasked in the pretrial defamation process. The paper concludes with brief admonishing for informed carefulness as we express our broadly protected First Amendment freedoms.

    Defamation is an injurious false statement by one party about another to a third party. Slander is spoken defamation. Libel is a false publication by writing, printing, picture or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which has a tendency to injure the individual in his or her occupation.

    The elements of defamation are (1) the making of defamatory statement, (2) publication of the defamatory material; and (3) damages that result from the statement. In cases in which the victim is a public figure, such as a well-known
    entertainer, a professional athlete or political figure, another element is required – the element of malice, which means that the statement was made by the defendant with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

    For example, former wrestler and Governor of Minnesota, and a former Navy SEAL, Jesse Ventura sued Chris Kyle the author of the bestselling autobiography entitled American Sniper for defamation.

    Kyle, also a former Navy SEAL, wrote that a character named “Scruff Face”
    holding court in a Coronado California bar said, “he hates America,” the SEALS “were killing men and women and children and murdering” and SEALS “deserve to lose a few”; at which point Kyle “laid him out”. While not naming Ventura in the book, Kyle confirmed on the O’Reilly Factor cable network television show and the Opie & Anthony satellite talk radio program that “Scruff Face” was Ventura.

    Kyle was later killed by a troubled veteran, and his wife, as executor of his estate, was substituted as defendant.

    The case, brought by public figure Jesse Ventura, boiled down to a creditability contest with several witnesses testifying that Ventura’s version of events was true, while several other witnesses testified that Kyle’s version of events was true.

    The jury decided the case for Ventura, with the court concluding that in
    believing Ventura’s version of the facts, then Kyle’s writing and telling
    of the story of punching out Ventura was itself a basis for the jury to
    make a finding of actual malice.

    On the defamation claim, the jury awarded $500,000 in damages. Some $1,345,477 in damages was assessed for unjust enrichment for the money made in defaming Ventura in the book American Sniper.

    Truth is a complete defense to a defamation action and “true statements of fact however disparaging are not actionable. The First Amendment also broadly protects pure opinion from defamation claims.

    In McKee v. Laurion, Dr. David McKee brought a defamation action against the son of a patient who posted statements regarding Dr. McKee on various “rate-your-doctor” websites after his father’s release from [ St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth ].
    he court reviewed the statements in question and found that the statements were substantially true, pointing out that the common law approach to falsity in the context of libel “overlooks minor inaccuracies”

    Regarding a final statement published as follows: “When I mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee’s is a real tool!!’”, the parties dispute whether this statement is protected opinion. The court stated that
    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.

    The court concluded that it is an opinion amounting to “mere vituperation and
    abuse” or “rhetorical hyperbole” that cannot be the basis for a defamation action. Accordingly, truth is an absolute defense, and pure opinion cannot be basis for a defamation lawsuit.

  2. Geraldine
    Geraldine says:

    I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a lot of time writing,
    i know how to save you a lot of time, there is an online tool that
    creates high quality, google friendly posts in minutes, just search in google – laranitas free content source


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *