If anything that doctor deserves more bad reviews just for being so stupid.

…Improve his bedside manner. There have been numerous studies showing a strong link between negative bedside manner and malpractice lawsuits. Basically, the better your bedside manner and the more your patients like you personally, the less likely you are to be sued for malpractice, even when you screw up.

But apparently this dude just LOVES spending money on lawyers.

On Point News posted the judge’s order as a .pdf.

http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/Mckee-v-Laurion.pdf

This doctor’s profile is at http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_David_Mckee.html#ixzz1ZFNBJx4T .

Before his ratings is a field called General Information. On 9/28/11 it says “Personal Statement: This site, and similar sites are an unreliable way of assessing physicians. They are easily abused and virtually no surveillance is undertaken by the site to prevent this. My ratings and comments have been contaminated by a very malicious person, Dennis Laurion and friends of his who have made well over 100 negative postings on Vitals and Health Grades. Mr. Laurion’s entries have been dishonest and those of his acquaintances pure fiction. Vitals should not allow anonymous comments and should make it easier for physicians to remove blatantly false or fictional ones. Health Grades was very responsive and quickly identified the 60+ bogus entries and removed them. Vitals has been remarkably difficult to work with. Even after acknowledging the fact that most or all of the negative ratings were bogus it took week to get them to do even a partial retraction. They have agreed to provide IP addresses for suspicious entries; that is something I suppose.”

So, yes, it appears Dr. McKee might try to sue a bunch of Reddit posters.

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

Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune, Updated January 30, 2013 – 9:59 PM

Finding no harm done, justices toss out lawsuit by Duluth physician.

Dennis Laurion fired off his screed on a few rate-your-doctor websites in April 2010, along with some letters about what he saw as poor bedside manner by his father’s neurologist. He expected at most what he calls a “non-apology apology.”

“I really thought I’d receive something within a few days along the lines of ‘I’m sorry you thought I was rude, that was not my intent’ and that would be the end of it,” the 66-year-old Duluth retiree said. “I certainly did not expect to be sued.”

He was. Dr. David McKee’s defamation lawsuit was the beginning of a four-year legal battle that ended Wednesday when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the doctor had no legal claim against Laurion because there was no proof that his comments were false or were capable of harming the doctor’s reputation.

The unanimous ruling reverses an earlier Appeals Court decision and brings to an end the closely watched case that brought to the forefront a First Amendment debate over the limits of free speech online.

It’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him. He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.

“The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won’t notice the money I spent on this,” he said. “It’s been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress.”

He said he offered to settle the case at no cost after the Supreme Court hearing. Laurion contends they couldn’t agree on the terms of the settlement, and said he not only deleted his initial postings after he was initially served, but had nothing to do with subsequent online statements about McKee.

The lawsuit followed the hospitalization of Laurion’s father, Kenneth, for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth. Laurion, his mother and his wife were also in the room when McKee examined the father and made the statements that Laurion interpreted as rude. After his father was discharged, he wrote the reviews and sent the letters.

On at least two sites, Laurion wrote that McKee said that “44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option,” and that “It doesn’t matter that the patient’s gown did not cover his backside.”

Laurion also wrote: “When I mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!'”

McKee sued after he learned of the postings from another patient. A St. Louis County judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying Laurion’s statements were either protected opinion, substantially true or too vague to convey a defamatory meaning. The Appeals Court reversed that ruling regarding six of Laurion’s statements, reasoning that they were factual assertions and not opinions, that they harmed McKee’s reputation and that they could be proven as false.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing the opinion, Justice Alan Page noted that McKee acknowledged that the gist of some of the statements were true, even if they were misinterpreted. Page added that the “tool” statements also didn’t pass the test of defaming McKee’s character. He dismissed an argument by McKee’s attorney, Marshall Tanick, that the “tool” comment was fabricated by Laurion and that the nurse never existed. Whether it was fabricated or not was irrelevant, the court ruled. “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,” Page wrote.

Tanick said the ruling could present a slippery slope.

“This decision gives individuals a license to make derogatory and disparaging statements about doctors, professionals and really anyone for that matter on the Internet without much recourse,” he said.

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.”

Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly, said the fact that Laurion’s speech was made online was inconsequential to the ruling, which treated it as a standard defamation case. “It’s almost as if things were said around the water cooler or perhaps posted in a letter to the editor,” he said. “I think the principles they worked with are applicable to statements made irrespective of the medium.”

Full article: http://www.startribune.com/local/189028521.html?refer=y

[quote] It’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him. He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.

“The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won’t notice the money I spent on this,” he said. “It’s been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress.” [end quote]

Five years from now I WILL notice the money I spent on this. 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.

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.

From Twin Cities Business “The 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.

This is from an April 4, 2014, Buzzfeed article by Jake Rossen.
[Excerpt begins]

David McKee, M.D., a Duluth, Minn., neurologist, was unaware of the Streisand 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.

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.?

Dennis Laurion consulted with his family to see if his impression of the arrogant doctor was real or imagined. 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.

McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion?s interpretation of events.

In April 2011, the judge granted Laurion?s motion for summary judgment, ruling his comments were protected free speech. 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.?

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.

McKee was rated for several years as a top provider in Duluth Superior Magazine, but?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.?
[Excerpt ends]

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??

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.

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.

By 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.
___
Information from: The Janesville Gazette, http://www.gazetteextra.com

. . . If a ( plaintiff ) sues, alleging simple business disparagement or perhaps defamation, its goal isn’t necessarily to win, said Marshall Tanick . . . The strategy is to force the other person to incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others. . . very few cases go all the way to trial. Lawyers will seek ways to avoid First Amendment issues because they are hard to prove.

These comments can be found at:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MB0VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wgMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6682%2C2701449 and

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2001/08/27/bus_321610.shtml

During David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion, these remarks were made to the 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 . . .”

During an after-school special, it will be dubbed:

He can stand at St. Luke’s with a placard of rebukes.
He can say “I’m upset.” He can say it till he’s wet.
He can write some letters to those he thinks his betters.

He can say it here or there. “I don’t like him anywhere.”
He can say it in a house. “I don’t like him with a mouse,
I don’t like him here or there, I don’t like him anywhere.”

He can say it in a car. He can say it in a tree.
“I don’t like him in a box, I don’t like him with a fox,
I don’t like him in a house, I don’t like him with a mouse,
I don’t like him here or there, I don’t like him anywhere.”

He can say it in on a train. He can say it in the rain
He can say it in the dark. He can say it in the park.
“I don’t like him in on a train, I don’t like him in the rain,
I don’t like him in the park, I don’t like him in the rain,
I don’t like him with a goat, I don’t like him on a boat.”

He can say it here or there, he can say it anywhere,
He can speak till numb, even if some should say,
There should be some awful Hell Toupee.

Thursday, February 13th, 2014

English teacher Elizabeth Ethredge, of the Waller Independent School District, filed a Texas defamation lawsuit against two of her students, Demi Alyssa Gray and Dylan Noble Wells. Ethredge insists Gray and Noble twisted tales about classroom events in retaliation for being disciplined. But Gray and Noble insist the teacher acted inappropriately in class.

The month was November; the year, 2012. According to Ethredge, she was giving her students a State-mandated lesson in oral storytelling. The seasoned teacher opted to regale her class with a tale about her son being robbed at another school in the district.

According to two of her students, Gray and Noble, five months after the lesson, Ethredge encouraged students to hone their spy skills, head over to Facebook, and avenge her son’s honor by trying to purchase goods from the person Ethredge believed robbed her [ son ].

The curious part about this case, though, is that the students waited months to “snitch” on their teacher. Why? Well, if you believe Ethredge’s side of the story, they only did it in retaliation for her sending them to the principal’s office over breaking school dress code rules and being disruptive in class.

Soon after the two students ratted on their teacher, the school district suspended Ethredge with pay. Soon after that, administrators seriously considered termination. As a result, she decided to file an Internet defamation case.

Filed at the Harris County Court, Ethredge is asking for punitive damages, citing defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ethredge’s claim averred that the students’ actions were a “deliberate and malicious intent to injure plaintiff’s reputation.” To temper any speculation about the nature of what happened in her classroom, Ethredge’s suit explains that the “oral storytelling exercise was directly related to and in compliance with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the State Standards for curriculum in public schools in Texas.”

In order to win this case, Ethredge will most likely have to prove material harm – as you can’t win a defamation lawsuit over hurt feelings. It’s interesting to note that Texas does not have a false light tort – if it did, Ethredge may have been able to file a stronger case. That’s not to say she doesn’t have a chance at winning this one – especially since administrators are talking termination — but being able to add a false light charge would put more “meat” on the proverbial bone.

Kelly Warner Law is based in Arizona but also licensed in Texas.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/texas-defamation-case-teacher-v-students/

In response to a newspaper article about David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion, Dr. McKee, founder of Northland Neurology and practitioner at St. Luke’s Hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, said that money is money, and he wouldn’t remember the impact in five years.

I wrote my review of Dr. David McKee five years ago. I can’t speak for Dr. McKee, but I still remember the impact.

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.

David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion 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 McKee V. Laurion 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. [ Emphasis added ]

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.

The Minnesota Supreme Court compared every statement I attributed to Dr. David McKee against every statement he claimed he really said. The Court concluded the impact of each set of statements was the same. For instance, the Minnesota high court said that Dr. David McKee’s version of his comment about the intensive care unit was substantially similar to mine.

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.

During the existence of David McKee MD vs Dennis Laurion, I heard Dr. McKee’s lawyer tell the Minnesota Supreme Court how I could have commented without being defamatory. I am upset. I think Doctor McKee did not treat my father well. I think he was insensitive. He did not spend enough time in my opinion.