On January 30, in McKee v. Laurion, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that none of the six online statements that had been claimed by Dr. David McKee to be defamatory as to him, when they appeared in an online review written by Dennis Laurion, actually was, indeed, defamatory. The court therefore dismissed the case, leaving the online reviews to stand.
The six statements at issue concerned the medical treatment that Dennis Laurion’s father, Kenneth Laurion, after having had a stroke and being hospitalized, had received from Dr. McKee. Unhappy with statements that Dr. McKee had made, and perceiving Dr. McKee’s attitude to be rude and insensitive, Dennis Laurion then left negative comments about Dr. McKee on rate-your-doctor websites.
In return, Dr. McKee sued Dennis Laurion for defamation. As noted above, however, none of the six statements at issue was deemed defamatory by Minnesota’s high court, and thus, Dr. McKee lost his case.
- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/20/the-minnesota-supreme-court-rules-for-the-defendant-in-a-suit-alleging-online-defamation#sthash.yPcHb8IT.dpuf
Why Mr. Laurion Won the Libel Case
This case might have turned into a he-said-he-said were it not for the presence of witnesses: Three Laurion family members were there in the hospital room during the 20 minutes during which five of the six contested statements were made by Dr. McKee. (The sixth statement at issue in the case came from an unnamed friend of Mr. Laurion’s who was a nurse, and who called Dr. McKee—not to his face, but only to Mr. Laurion—a “real tool,” based only on what she had heard of Dr. McKee’s conduct. (The Minnesota Supreme Court deemed the nurse’s comment, as reproduced in the online reviews by Mr. Laurion, to be pure opinion, and thus First-Amendment-protected.)
- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/20/the-minnesota-supreme-court-rules-for-the-defendant-in-a-suit-alleging-online-defamation#sthash.yPcHb8IT.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment