the guy who runs the site later admitting he didn’t realize that he didn’t have to do that

What a dork…

This is a big,ugly money-grab by a couple of A-clowns who need to have their hats handed to them by a Judge -ASAP

Your article swept me away with its vast information and great writing. Thank you for sharing your views with such passion. I like your views.

I think the main problem here is that ugly people have cosmetic surgery believing that it is possible to polish a turd. Surprisingly, it is actually possible to polish a turd. But a polished turd is still a turd at the end of the day – no amount of surgery/lawsuits/complaints/bitching/whining will ever correct that.

Although the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed David McKee MD v 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. 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.

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. Newspaper stories have caused people to call or write me to relate their own medical experiences. I?ve referred them to my lawyers. I?ve also received encouragement from other persons who have been sued over accusations of libel or slander.

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. At depositions, the plaintiff and I sat opposite each other, while I answered his lawyer’s questions, and he answered my lawyer ‘s questions. We were not to speak to each other.

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.

You’ve got to wonder how cases like this are taken seriously. plastic surgery is always risky but most people don’t understand that basic fact.

The following is taken from a longer article, ?Insult And Injury: How Doctors Are Losing The War Against Trolls,? written by Jake Rossen, BuzzFeed contributor, April 4, 2014.

“The Streisand Effect.? refers to the consequence of inviting even more negative attention by trying to remove negative attention. (The) inspiration was Barbra Streisand?s objecting to a photo of her house in California being made part of a series documenting coastal erosion. Her complaints made the image far more pervasive online than it would have been had she simply ignored it.

David McKee, M.D., a Duluth, Minn., neurologist, was unaware of this phenomenon at the time he decided to sue Dennis Laurion. Laurion?s father, Kenneth, had suffered a stroke in April 2010; McKee was called in to assess Kenneth?s condition.

Both McKee and Dennis Laurion agree on substance, if not necessarily intent: The doctor entered the room and expressed that he was initially puzzled the elder Laurion had been moved from intensive care. Usually, McKee said, there are only two ways out of the ICU, and he offered this was the better option. McKee intended for the comment to be lighthearted; the Laurions found it crass.

McKee asked if Kenneth felt like getting out of bed so he could make an assessment on mobility. He did, though his gown was partially undone in the back. According to the Laurions, McKee was oblivious to Kenneth?s modesty. ?His son was right there,? McKee counters. ?If he was concerned about the gown, he didn?t get out of his chair to tie it.?

The family exited the room while McKee conducted a brief examination. Laurion says he returned to find his father partially conscious. His head, Laurion asserts, was ?pushed against the railing? of the hospital bed, appearing to be a victim of postural hypotension that resulted in a brief fainting spell.

Unaware of any resentment, McKee went to the nurse?s station to dictate notes; an irritated Dennis Laurion consulted with his family to see if his impression of the arrogant doctor was real or imagined. At no point did he approach McKee to clear the air. Instead, he fired off a dozen or more letters to a variety of medical institutions, including the hospital?s ombudsman, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, Medicare, and the American Medical Association.

?I just wanted someone with ?M.D.? after their name to say, ?This doesn?t reflect well on you.?? Laurion says. ?I wanted someone to say he should tone it down and be more personable.? The dozen letters, he says, were to account for any overlapping bureaucracy ? though he admits even his own lawyer questioned the avalanche of paperwork.

For good measure, he also posted reviews on rating sites including Vitals.com and Insiderpages.com. In addition to critiquing his bedside manner, Laurion quoted a nurse he ran into who once knew McKee. The doctor, she allegedly said, was ?a real tool.?

McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion?s interpretation of events. McKee claims the writer called him shortly before close of business Friday to solicit a quote; the story ran the following day. ?The article was written like I was being reviewed for misconduct,? McKee says. In fact, no action had been taken against him by any of the organizations Laurion had written to.

Two events further demoralized McKee. In April 2011, the judge granted Laurion?s motion for summary judgment, ruling his comments were protected free speech. Worse, a user on Reddit.com 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.? Their software was apparently unable to determine that a surge of opinion over a matter of hours was highly unusual activity for a physician who normally received perhaps three comments in a year.

?I got a cold call from an online reputation site,? he recalls. ?They said, ?Boy, you?re all over the internet. You want some help??? One of the physician?s three daughters was handed a printout of an online post in school and ridiculed. She came home crying.

?The internet creates a scenario where people with most emotional energy behind their opinions will become the most visible,? he says. ?But the 7,000 patients I?ve seen since practicing in Duluth that have little or no feelings are invisible.? Convinced Laurion was behind the multitude of postings (though they coincided with the Reddit discussion, a large number allegedly came from Duluth, where Laurion resided), McKee renewed his litigation and his lawyer hired a private investigator to find the nurse Laurion claimed to have run into. She was never located.

?When he sued me, he opened Pandora?s box,? says Laurion, who denies submitting any posts beyond the initial two. ?Whether all of it was proportionate, I don?t know. My intent all along was simply to have someone he respected say to him, ?When a patient complains, it behooves us to conduct ourselves more circumspectly.? That was my goal.?

McKee found no easy way to exit the situation. ?You get drawn in,? he says, suggesting his lawyer nudged him into further action. ?It?s throwing good money after bad. ? I wanted out almost as soon as I got in, and it was always, ?Well, just one more step.?? McKee appealed, and the summary judgment was overturned. The case, and the measurable impact of being labeled a ?real tool,? was now headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Law professor Eric Goldman, who says he feels physicians are ?thin-skinned? when it comes to patient complaints, is confident that litigation is never the answer. ?I imagine many lawyers saying that?s not good idea,? he says. ?Good lawyers, anyway. McKee made a bad call. There are no winners in defamation lawsuits, and you should advise clients of that.?

Nearly $70,000 in legal fees later, McKee would agree. He argued his case in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ultimately concluded Laurion?s comments were opinions. And because the court could not rule on the meaning of ?tool,? it became impossible to determine whether that was libelous.

?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,? read the ruling, which was excruciating in its examination of a schoolyard insult and found in favor of Laurion.

McKee was rated for several years as a top provider in Duluth Superior Magazine, a well-regarded lifestyle publication that recently folded. But his online reputation will outlive that. ?From now until the end of time, I?ll be the jerk neurologist who was rude to a World War II veteran,? the physician says. ?I?m stuck with it forever.?

Full article:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jakerossen/insult-and-injury-inside-the-webs-one-sided-war-on-doctors

“Defendant In Jesse Ventura V. Taya Kyle Cites Mckee V. Laurion Precedent In Her Legal Brief”
The widow of Chris Kyle, author of “American Sniper”, is appealing former Navy SEAL and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura’s defamation award against Kyle’s estate. Her brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cites David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion as a precedent.
In July, Ventura was awarded $1.845 million for claims made by Kyle in American Sniper Ventura says were fabricated and damaging to Ventura’s career and reputation.
Excerpts from brief:

United States Court of Appeals
for the
Eighth Circuit

Jesse Ventura a/k/a James G. Janos, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Taya Kyle, as Executor of the Estate of Chris Kyle, Defendant-Appellant.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civ. No. 12-cv-472 (RHK/JJK) – District Judge Richard H. Kyle

BRIEF and ADDENDUM of APPELLANT TAYA KYLE,
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHRIS KYLE

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
Attorneys for Appellant Taya Kyle,
Executor of the Estate of Chris Kyle

SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT

Appellant Taya Kyle, executor of the estate of Chris Kyle, asks this Court to reverse the judgment awarding Jesse Ventura $500,000 for defamation and $1,345,477.25 for unjust enrichment. Review of the record establishes that Ventura did not prove material falsity or actual malice. The court’s unjust enrichment award based on allegedly defamatory speech is unprecedented, distorts Minnesota common law, and violates the First Amendment. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed and the case dismissed.

This Court should reverse the defamation judgment because the district court incorrectly instructed the jury about the questions of whether the statements at issue were materially false and published with actual malice. The First Amendment requires an appellate court to examine the record independently and enter judgment for the defendant where, no properly instructed jury could have found defamation liability. See Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 285.

. . .

The district court erred when it instructed the jury it could impose defamation liability based on the entirety of the “story” Kyle told about Ventura, rather than explaining that its original instruction required Ventura to prove all of the elements of his defamation claim with respect to at least one of the three specific statements at issue.

A jury instruction is erroneous if it misstates the law. Wolfe v. Fayetteville, Ark. Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2011). To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove that a specific statement is both defamatory and false. McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 729 – 30 (Minn. 2013). In addition, the First Amendment requires a public figureto prove that such a statement was published with actual malice. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 327-28 (1974).

The Supreme Court, this Court, and the Minnesota Supreme Court have all left no doubt that, to sustain a defamation claim with respect to a group of allegedly false and defamatory statements, a plaintiff must prove each of the elements of his cause of action with respect to each such statement. See, e.g., Air Wis., 134 S. Ct. at 864-65; Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 502, 522-25 (1991); Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952, 964-65 (8th Cir. 2011); Aviation Charter, 416 F.3d at 868-71; Michaelis v. CBS Inc., 119 F.3d 697, 700-03 (8th Cir. 1997); Price v. Viking Penguin, 881 F.2d 1426, 1429 (8th Cir. 1989); McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d at 729-30.

Reference: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/12/26/American-Sniper-widow-appeals-Jesse-Venturas-defamation-award/4981419620802/