A Minnesota judge weighed a touchy healthcare issue in a defamation lawsuit, deciding whether or not a doctor's right to protect his reputation outweighs the family of a patient's intentions to publicize their grievances against the doc. The District Court judge sided with the family, tossing out the doctor's defamation lawsuit.
Folks, stuff like this is ONE reason why health care is costly. If a physician is named in a medical malpractice suit (and largely such suits are due to grievances for reasons other than blatant mal practice) the cost to practice medicine goes up. If the person(s) suing the doctor lose their quest for malpractice, the MD who was sued is held accountable (by the malpractice insurance carrier) because he is NAMED IN A SUIT- even if it never goes to trial. In some specialties (in some states), the cost of malpractice insurance = an amount to half of their income. If they are in private practice, they also have an overhead to pay (office building, staff, equipment, supplies, advertising, etc). The state and specialty also dictate the associations they are forced to belong to as well as mandatory certifications and re-certs. This can be several thousand each year!
ReplyDeleteThis judge's decision is basically telling any patient that they always have the upper hand, even when their grievance bears no creedence. Expected side effects are not malpractice. If you get diarrhea from taking an anti-biotic, it is what it is and do not go looking for an ambulance chaser to help you sue. If you are told that surgery XX will NOT change your circumstances and the contraindications could leave your with paralysis, do not expect to have a right to sue. Patients and their behaviors are a huge contributor to the cost of health care and this judge, who is clearly being an activist from the bench, is part of the problem!
So which elected official will take up lawsuit reform? There is an MD in either WA or OR (Matthew S. Rice) who has been beating this drum some time...check him out and also think about it. Who will control and reel in the lawyers and their agendas/incomes>
Cannot wait for my man and Obama Care!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo more bills and all the thrills.....at least that's what my man Obama said.
the doctor is the one sueing here
ReplyDeleteThe judge's decision is posted at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.onpointnews.com/docs/Mckee-v-Laurion.pdf
From earlier commenter: "This judge's decision is basically telling any patient that they always have the upper hand, even when their grievance bears no creedence."
ReplyDeleteFrom the Star Tribune, 1/30/13:
"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'."
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."
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
TWIN CITIES BUSINESS
ReplyDeleteThe Top Lawsuits Of 2013
by Steve Kaplan
December 20, 2013
Never Shout "He's a Tool!" On a Crowded Website?
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.
As one of the “trolls” detailed in the article, I have no issue with the accuracy of the text - at least as it pertains to me - but the tone of the title fails to distinguish sincere complaints about bedside manner from attacks on mental stability, attacks on medical prowess, fake websites, allegations of dangerous injections, and use of multiple identities. The author said “McKee and Laurion agree on substance…”
ReplyDeleteWhile 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.
UW-Whitewater professor sues student over postings
ReplyDeleteBy Associated Press 22 May 2014
A University of Wisconsin-Whitewater professor is suing a former graduate student who posted online comments and videos that the teacher considers defamatory.
Anthony Llewellyn took a class last year from communications professor Sally Vogl-Bauer, but the experience didn't go well.
Llewellyn posted comments on professor-rating sites accusing the teacher of criticizing his academic abilities, grading him unfairly and causing him to fail out of school. He said he spoke with her in April about his concerns, two months before he was told he had failed her class.
Vogl-Bauer contends the comments amount to defamation, while Llewellyn says his goal was simply to inform the public about how the professor treated him.
Tim Edwards, the attorney representing Vogl-Bauer, said the comments could be especially damaging to someone in a small professional community. He said he and Vogl-Bauer agree that students should be allowed to express their opinions, "but when you go so far beyond that, into a concerted effort to attack somebody's reputation because things didn't go your way, that's much different."
Edwards and Vogl-Bauer asked Llewellyn to take down his online comments and videos. They filed the lawsuit after he refused.
Llewellyn said it's important for the videos and comments to stay online so the public can remain informed.
It's not clear how successful the lawsuit will be, but a similar case in Minnesota ended with a ruling in favor of the person who posted the online rating. In the case (David McKee MD vs Dennis Laurion), a doctor took offense when a patient's son went on a rate-your-doctor website and called him "a real tool," slang for stupid or foolish. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in January 2013 that the comment wasn't defamatory because it was an opinion protected by free-speech rights.
Timothy Edwards comments about Ms. Sally Vogl-Bauer's intentions to welcome criticism but sue defamation cause me to think defamation plaintiff lawyers must use templates for talking to the press.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sally Vogl-Bauer's lawyer, Timothy [[ Edwards released a statement: “Students have a right to express their opinion, but when you go so far beyond that, into a concerted effort to attack somebody’s reputation because things didn’t go your way, that’s much different.” ]]
[[ “When you make false statements of fact repeatedly about another person with the intent of harming them, that’s over the line,” said Tim Edwards, attorney for UW-Whitewater communications professor Sally Vogl-Bauer. “If you truthfully say, ‘In my experience, this isn’t a good teacher, I didn’t have a good experience, she was late’ and that’s your opinion,
that’s fair,” Edwards said. ]]
A Duluth News Tribune article of June 2010 quoted Marshall Tanick, now employed by Hellmuth Johnson law firm, who in a phone interview alleged that Laurion defamed his client in several ways, including posting negative reviews of McKee on various websites. "The basis for the lawsuit is the defamatory statements that were made on websites and to other sources," Tanick said. "However, by no means does Dr. McKee want to in any way prevent or affect any kind of communications that may be made to the Board of Medical Practice or any other regulatory agencies. The purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent defamation being made on the websites and through other sources."
Duluth News Tribune, November 10, 2011: “The doctor maintains he was vilified unjustly and inaccurately on the Internet and in postings and correspondence to colleagues and peers and thinks that Mr. Laurion falsified statements and incidents that did not occur,” Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick said outside the courtroom after the hearing. “We maintain the case should be submitted to a jury to ensure that Dr. McKee and Mr. Laurion have their day in court so that the jury may determine this important issue.” Tanick told the panel his client is a highly regarded neurologist who has been defamed by Laurion’s comments, which appear pervasively on the Internet and falsely portray McKee as being insensitive and incompetent.
From Minneapolis Star Tribune March 25, 2012: McKee's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, said the doctor felt he had no choice but to sue to protect his reputation and his medical practice. "It's like removing graffiti from a wall," said Tanick. He said Laurion distorted the facts -- not only on the Internet, but in more than a dozen complaint letters to various medical groups. "He put words in the doctor's mouth," making McKee "sound uncaring, unsympathetic or just stupid."
Taken from videotaped comments to Minnesota Supreme Court: "He may have been upset at how Dr. McKee treated his father. Apparently he was, and he’s entitled to say that. He can say that “I’m upset. Doctor McKee did not treat my father well. He was insensitive.” He can make statements like that: “He didn’t spend enough time in my opinion.” He can make
factual (sic) statements, he can make them on the Internet, he can make them in letters, he can write a letter to the editor, he can stand in front of St. Luke’s Hospital with a placard saying those things if they are opinions . . ."
From BuzzFeed, 2014: 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.”