“Pensler is a plastic surgeon, and one woman apparently posted a picture showing uneven breasts with nipples that point in different directions”

Where do I sign up to be on that jury? I would make sure to bring lots of dollar bills.

Hey, the worthless, lay-a-bouts obviously got the best of you. Dude, people that read these Yelp reviews do so with a big grain-of-salt. A quality restaurant does not depend on idiot reviews. It depends on word of mouth. Any thinking person will try a restaurant for themselves and make their own decision. And if they really think about it they will try it more than once to get a real feel for the place and not go on one meal. Hell, anyone can have a “bad” meal. Chin up, dude and stop listening to the nitwits!

Dr. Sues…lol

I find it interesting that a few posts above this one is Yellow Pages suing over freedom of speech because people are opting out of receiving their ADVERTISING. And here we have people who have screwed up either food or surgery trying to squash free speech because it’s not favorable to them.

As I understand it, libel has to have provable damages. If this doctor screwed up the surgery she should be glad she’s only posting pictures and not suing HER for malpractice. I’d point out people have sued and won, with less grounds than botched surgery. (Thinking coffee here)

This is from http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/Internet-Law-and-Intellectual-Property-Articles/The-WWII-Vet-vs-The-Doctor-A-Case-of-Internet-Defamation.shtml

The WWII Vet vs. The Doctor: A Case of Internet Defamation

There must be something in the air, because as of late, defamation lawsuits are popping up from sea to shining sea-online and off. Former Major League superstar, Roger Clemens, is embroiled in an upcoming defamation lawsuit, while online travel heavyweight, TripAdvisor.com, is staring down the barrel of a group action being pursued by hundreds of hotel vendors; and in Duluth, Minnesota, a doctor is suing his patient’s son for-yep, you guessed it-spreading lies online.

In April of last year, World War II Veteran, Kenneth Laurion, was treated for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke’s Hospital by Dr. David McKee, a neurologist. During Mr. Laurion’s time in the hospital, his family alleged that Dr. McKee’s behavior was unacceptable. The Laurions insist that Dr. McKee’s bedside manner was beyond reproach. The good doc, they claimed, lacked common sensitivity-in both actions and comments-towards patient Kenneth and the rest of the Laurion clan. Like many would today, Dennis Laurion, Kenneth’s son, took to the Internet and made his displeasure with McKee known.

In June, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis. McKee’s attorney, Marshall Tanick, called Laurion’s alleged defamatory remarks ,”weapons of mass destruction” (oh yes, he went there). Tanick continued by arguing, “The totality of statements made on these websites would be injurious to the reputation and standing of a doctor in the eyes of others who might see it, including patients or prospective patients, colleagues, peers, referral sources, and others.”

On February 8th, accompanied by his wife and father, Dennis Laurion found himself in the Sixth Judicial District Court. He explained how when he went to the Intensive care unit to check on his father, he overheard Dr. McKee quip, “I had to find out whether you had been transferred or died.”

In a deposition, McKee acknowledged that he had made the statement, but insists it was in good humor and intended to alleviate tension.

Dr. McKee is seeking excess of $50,000. The Laurions and their lawyer, John Kelly, are claiming that any statements made about the doctor were true, thereby rendering Dennis Laurion immune from any liability. In the eyes of Kelly, Laurion’s comments were opinions that cannot be demonstrated to be false in court.

Eric Hylden, the presiding judge, announced that the suit was a “very interesting type of case.” Later, Hylden implied that, Constitutionally, Dennis certainly has a right to an opinion but went on to question whether or not there is some limitation to what citizens can say in an online public forum.

See more: http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/Internet-Law-and-Intellectual-Property-Articles/The-WWII-Vet-vs-The-Doctor-A-Case-of-Internet-Defamation.shtml

State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about a doctor online rating defamation lawsuit.

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/September_2012.pdf
Oral hearings for David McKee MD vs Dennis Laurion to be held 9/4/12 at Minnesota Supreme Court, Second Floor, State Capitol, St. Paul MN

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/September_2012_Summary.htm#a111154
Summary Of Issues prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner?s Office

http://defamationlaw.net/mckee-v-laurion-the-defamation-saga-continues/
When a doctor hires a private detective.

http://herald-review.com/news/national/doctor-s-suit-tests-limits-of-online-criticism/article_972968c4-78f2-11e1-8852-0019bb2963f4.html
Latest history from Star Tribune

[ MINNEAPOLIS — A man’s online post calling a doctor “a real tool” is protected speech, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The state’s highest court dismissed a case by Duluth neurologist David McKee, who took offense when a patient’s son posted critical remarks about him on rate-your-doctor websites. Those remarks included a claim that a nurse called the doctor “a real tool,” slang for stupid or foolish. ]

See also:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ONLINE_RATING_RISKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Minnesota high court says online post legally protected
By STEVE KARNOWSKI, January 30, 5:34 PM EST, 2013

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/257287/
Court protects Duluth doctor’s online critic
By: STEVE KUCHERA, Duluth News Tribune, January 30, 2013

http://www.startribune.com/local/189028521.html
Duluth doctor’s lawsuit against patient’s son over online criticism dismissed
Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune, January 30, 2013

http://comments.startribune.com/comments.php?d=content_comments&asset_id=189028521&section=/local&comments=true
Star Tribune comments

http://learningboosters.blogspot.com/search/label/.%20McKee%20v%20Laurion
Laurion answers questions

http://blogs.duanemorris.com/duanemorrisnewmedialawblog/entry/bedside_manners_was_the_doctor
Was the doctor defamed?

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA111154-0130.pdf.
Unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota

If a dr sues you. Just find them and blow their head off. I hate greedy arrogant doctors.

Twin Cities Business “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.

In spite of Supreme Court disagreement and subsequent peer disagreement, Marshall Tanick is STILL saying about David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion: “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.

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.

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.?

BUZZFEED: ?Insult And Injury: How Doctors Are Losing The War Against Trolls?

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??

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.

This 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. It has been the 800 pound gorilla in the room. 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.

What it?s like for a patient or family member to be caught up in a case like this was already described by the plaintiff?s lawyer in a Star Tribune newspaper article, ?Company sues over info put on Yahoo message board,? August 27, 2001, and repeated in http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2001/08/27/bus_321610.shtml . It said in part: ?If a company sues, alleging simple business disparagement or perhaps defamation, its goal isn?t necessarily to win,? said Marshall Tanick, a First Amendment expert at Mansfield & Tanick in Minneapolis. ?The strategy is to force the other person to incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements,? he said ? ?yet very few (cases) go all the way to trial and verdict,? Tanick said.

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.

It was not my intention to use any descriptions or conclusions. It was also not my intention to claim that I had proof. Only my family and the doctor were in the room. My intention was to portray my recollection of what happened in my father?s room. The public could decide what to believe and what – if any – impact it had on them: insensitive doctor or overly-sensitive consumer?

Medical peer newsletters or magazines that interviewed the plaintiff did not approach me. Websites maintained by doctors for doctors or lawyers for lawyers often caused an inference that I was a zealot family member or somebody who had asked about my dad?s chances and then shot the messenger. Generally, however, those websites echoed other websites in advising public relations responses other than a lawsuit – for fear of creating the ?Streisand Effect.? As a retired layman, I brought far less resources to the battle of financial attrition.

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.

This is an example of the old adage that some people just feel doesn’t apply to them. One aw $h1t can cancel 10 atta boys.