Larry Anderson is now CEO of Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside, California.
"The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons."
The Nightmarish Saga of Michael Fitzgibbons
The case pitting the whisteblowing doc against Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. appears to be over
OC Weekly News
Feb 21 2013
On June 28, 2006, Santa Ana police arrested Dr. Michael Fitzgibbons, an infectious-diseases specialist at Western Medical Center in Santa Ana, for allegedly waving a gun in traffic after they found a pistol and a pair of black gloves in his car. There are still many questions surrounding the incident: Who were the mystery callers who dialed 911, reporting the suspect was a man in a white medical coat driving a brown Toyota Camry? How were police able to find the vehicle so quickly in the hospital's parking lot several blocks away? Why would a soft-spoken doctor who'd just won a whistleblowing lawsuit celebrate by pointing a gun at strangers in traffic?
These questions may never be answered. But according to a jury trial that just ended at the Orange County Superior Courthouse in Santa Ana, there's one fact upon which everyone agrees: The alleged road-rage incident in question never happened. Instead, somebody planted the gun and gloves in Fitzgibbons' car. On Feb. 13, a jury went a step further, agreeing with Fitzgibbons' claim that he'd been framed by his employer in retaliation for an email he sent to colleagues questioning the company's financial outlook. The jury awarded him a whopping $5.7 million in damages.
In his successful lawsuit against the company, Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. (IHHI), Fitzgibbons had sought more than $46.8 million, arguing that his arrest at the hospital—and a series of subsequent strange events that nearly killed a family member—nearly destroyed his medical practice and left him permanently scarred with post-traumatic stress disorder. Lawyers for IHHI tried to convince jurors that Fitzgibbons had somehow set himself up in a bizarre ploy to appear as an unstable martyr, a strategy the jury took less than a day to reject.
This surreal saga began in 2005, a year after IHHI took over the cash-strapped Western Med and three other Orange County hospitals from the scandal-plagued Tenet Corp. As chief of the hospital's medical staff, Fitzgibbons was concerned that patient care might suffer under IHHI because the company just defaulted on a $50 million loan; in May of that year, he sent a pointed email to colleagues raising that concern. When IHHI officials got wind of this, they promptly sued him for slander and interfering with business practices. Fitzgibbons countersued, arguing that IHHI's lawsuit violated his free speech; a judge agreed with the doctor and tossed out the company's suit in June 2006.
Two weeks after the [dafamation case] decision, Santa Ana police arrested Fitzgibbons for the alleged gun-waving, but he was released after the department impounded his car and fingerprinted and strip-searched him at the police station. Because prosecutors had no eyewitnesses, his fingerprints weren't on the gun and DNA taken from the gloves failed to show a match, the doctor was never charged with a crime. But when he went to pick up his car at the impound lot on July 5, he quickly saw something that hadn't been in the vehicle when the police had found the gun—a plastic sack full of pills, each one stamped with the Playboy-bunny logo. Figuring someone was hoping to frame him yet again, Fitzgibbons immediately handed the bag over to his attorney, who flushed the pills down the toilet.
His troubles weren't over yet. On July 16, his daughter's car flipped on the 22 freeway. Miraculously, neither she nor her two passengers was injured, but as Fitzgibbons pulled out of his driveway, he realized one of his tires was flat. Although authorities ruled the crash an accident, Fitzgibbons was suspicious enough to hire a private crash investigator, who found a two-inch slash in one of the tires (see "Car Trouble," Aug. 4, 2006). Irvine police refused to investigate his claims, however, and Fitzgibbons tried to move on with his life.
Yet controversy and lawsuits continued to circulate around IHHI. The company's main lender, Medical Capital Holdings, turned out to be a Ponzi scheme whose investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while the lender's executives used the cash to finance lavish parties and even purchase a multimillion-dollar private yacht. In yet another bizarre twist, IHHI chief executive officer Bruce Mogel personally pressured the lender to obtain a $5 million loan for an Internet-porn advertising firm, E-Mark, that appeared to be a phony company (see "New Complications In the IHHI Saga," July 30, 2009).
One of the lawsuits swirling around IHHI led to an under-oath deposition of Larry B. Anderson, IHHI's vice president, which provided the first clue about the mysterious road-rage incident involving Fitzgibbons. According to Anderson, shortly after Fitzgibbons won his lawsuit against IHHI, Mogel told him that the doctor needed to be "humbled." Mogel, Anderson added, then proceeded to brag that he had a friend named Mikey Delgado, a weight-lifting thug who had Santa Ana cops on his payroll and could cause trouble for Fitzgibbons or any other doctor who interfered with the company.
Mogel instructed Anderson to issue a $10,000 check to Delgado's webpage-design company, Form Labs, which never did any work for IHHI, whose own investigators later determined it to be a front company with nothing to show for itself but a post-office-box address in Scottsdale, Arizona, where Mogel lives. After he cut the check and Fitzgibbons was arrested, Anderson suspected the mysterious Delgado had planted the gun in the doctor's car. Those suspicions were confirmed, he adds, when Mogel appeared to relish in Fitzgibbons' plight, even remarking, "People don't know how powerful I am."
Court Reverses Run-Away Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict
An Orange County judge has reversed the jury verdict that found Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor.
by Enterprise Counsel Group, lawyers for IHHI
24-7PressRelease
May 10, 2013
In February, it was widely reported an Orange County jury found a hospital chain, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (IHHI), liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor. (Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/13; Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/8). The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons.
Yesterday, Judge Gregory H. Lewis of the Orange County Superior Court set aside the jury's verdict in its entirety. In doing so, the Court granted judgment for IHHI. The judgment states, "Plaintiff Dr. Fitzgibbons will take nothing from Defendant IHHI" and "Defendant IHHI [will] recover from Dr. Fitzgibbons its cost of suit."
Judge Lewis explained, "after full consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the court determined the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence." Judge Lewis also determined "it is more probable than not" the jury engaged in misconduct prejudicial to IHHI. Finally, Judge Lewis found the jury's verdict appeared "to be a product of passion and prejudice instead of an evaluation of the extent of [Dr. Fitzgibbons'] emotional distress."
"Needless to say, this is a huge relief for a company dedicated to putting its money toward the best possible patient care, not paying millions of dollars to a single doctor who hired a contingency lawyer to complain he was distressed, even though the doctor in question admittedly never missed a single day of work or presented evidence of the slightest economic loss," says David A. Robinson, IHHI's lead trial attorney. Per Robinson: "As noted in the Court's order, 'at worst' Dr. Fitzgibbons claimed 'some other doctors poked fun at him.' That is hardly 'severe' emotional distress justifying taking money from patient care to make a single doctor and his lawyer rich."
One reason the Court found the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence is the Court rejected Dr. Fitzgibbons' claim that IHHI ratified its former CEO's alleged conduct. Per Robinson: "The evidence showed Dr. Fitzgibbons' entire case rested on the testimony of one man, Larry Anderson. Anderson admitted his conjecture that his former boss, Mogel, might have hired a thug was 'without meat' and 'without substance.' Indeed, this is why Anderson claimed he kept this story a complete secret from everyone else at IHHI while Anderson worked there. Anderson never got around to telling anyone about this admitted speculation until almost two and a half years later, and then under suspicious circumstances. How could IHHI have ratified conduct that Anderson admittedly first concealed, then later claimed was only speculation?"
Enterprise Counsel Group, A Law Corporation (ECG) is a business law firm specializing in trial, appellate, transactional, labor and real estate matters...
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Patient who commented on Internet wins in Minnesota Supreme Court against doctor who sued him for defamation
Mr. Laurion wins, Dr. McKee loses.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Laurion that patients have a right to report on the Internet their observations regarding the behavior of doctors. Patients also have the right to report their opinions to medical groups. I don't know what country Dr. McKee thought he was living in. I believe Dr. McKee proved that he has a bad attitude by hounding Mr. Laurion.
See post: Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
See Doctors Silencing Patients on Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Read the decision HERE.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Laurion that patients have a right to report on the Internet their observations regarding the behavior of doctors. Patients also have the right to report their opinions to medical groups. I don't know what country Dr. McKee thought he was living in. I believe Dr. McKee proved that he has a bad attitude by hounding Mr. Laurion.
See post: Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
See Doctors Silencing Patients on Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Read the decision HERE.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
Star Tribune
Maura Lerner
September 4, 2012
A state Supreme Court case is testing the boundaries of website reviews. Is it defamatory to call a doctor a "real tool?"
Or to claim that a nurse described a doctor that way?
The Minnesota Supreme Court wrestled with those questions on Tuesday, as the justices heard arguments in a case about what is or isn't fair game on the Internet.
Two years ago, a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee, sued the son of an elderly patient for defamation over some negative comments that were posted on rate-your-doctor websites.
On Tuesday, the state's top court was asked to decide whether the lawsuit should finally go to trial, after the case was thrown out by a lower court and reinstated on appeal. The lawsuit is one of a growing number of legal battles testing the limits of free speech on the Internet.
A good portion of the oral arguments were devoted to the meaning of the words that Dennis Laurion, 65, used to describe his family's encounter with McKee in April, 2010, when Laurion's father, Kenneth, then 84, was hospitalized with a stroke.
After McKee examined his father, Laurion complained about the doctor's bedside manner on several websites. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!'" he wrote.
John Kelly, Laurion's attorney, noted that Internet sites are a "free for all" for people to share opinions and that his client's comments were perfectly appropriate. "We have a word, the word 'tool,'" Kelly told the justices. "When you look at the word, you have to ask: Is it defamatory?" He argued that the phrase, while "it clearly is not a compliment," is no worse than "calling someone an idiot or a fool."
During questioning, some of the justices seemed to agree. "Saying someone's a 'real tool' sounds more like an opinion than a statement of fact," Justice Christopher Dietzen said.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea had a similar reaction. "The point of the post is, 'This doctor did not treat my father well,'" she said. "I can't grasp why that wouldn't be protected opinion."
But McKee's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, argued that Laurion had gone beyond opinion, "making up" statements that were untrue. He noted that Laurion had never been able to identify the nurse who allegedly called McKee a tool. "There was no nurse," Tanick said. "He made it up." He also accused Laurion of putting words in McKee's mouth that made him look "insensitive and uncaring."
See the whole article: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/168552176.html
See the comments.
Star Tribune
Maura Lerner
September 4, 2012
A state Supreme Court case is testing the boundaries of website reviews. Is it defamatory to call a doctor a "real tool?"
Or to claim that a nurse described a doctor that way?
The Minnesota Supreme Court wrestled with those questions on Tuesday, as the justices heard arguments in a case about what is or isn't fair game on the Internet.
Two years ago, a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee, sued the son of an elderly patient for defamation over some negative comments that were posted on rate-your-doctor websites.
On Tuesday, the state's top court was asked to decide whether the lawsuit should finally go to trial, after the case was thrown out by a lower court and reinstated on appeal. The lawsuit is one of a growing number of legal battles testing the limits of free speech on the Internet.
A good portion of the oral arguments were devoted to the meaning of the words that Dennis Laurion, 65, used to describe his family's encounter with McKee in April, 2010, when Laurion's father, Kenneth, then 84, was hospitalized with a stroke.
After McKee examined his father, Laurion complained about the doctor's bedside manner on several websites. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!'" he wrote.
John Kelly, Laurion's attorney, noted that Internet sites are a "free for all" for people to share opinions and that his client's comments were perfectly appropriate. "We have a word, the word 'tool,'" Kelly told the justices. "When you look at the word, you have to ask: Is it defamatory?" He argued that the phrase, while "it clearly is not a compliment," is no worse than "calling someone an idiot or a fool."
During questioning, some of the justices seemed to agree. "Saying someone's a 'real tool' sounds more like an opinion than a statement of fact," Justice Christopher Dietzen said.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea had a similar reaction. "The point of the post is, 'This doctor did not treat my father well,'" she said. "I can't grasp why that wouldn't be protected opinion."
But McKee's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, argued that Laurion had gone beyond opinion, "making up" statements that were untrue. He noted that Laurion had never been able to identify the nurse who allegedly called McKee a tool. "There was no nurse," Tanick said. "He made it up." He also accused Laurion of putting words in McKee's mouth that made him look "insensitive and uncaring."
See the whole article: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/168552176.html
See the comments.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Dr. David McKee sues patient's son for Internet defamation and hires a private detective to find out which nurse called McKee a "tool"
UPDATE: Defendant Dennis Laurion wins Internet defamation case in Minnesota Supreme Court.
David McKee v. Dennis Laurion
"When a doctor hires a private detective to find out which one of the 4,400 nurses in St. Louis County, MN may have called him a “tool” you know the man is serious about defending his reputation. That is just what Dr. David McKee of Northland Neurology and Myology is doing in preparation for the next leg of his defamation lawsuit against the son of a former patient, Dennis Laurion.
"When neurologist Dr. David McKee treated World War II veteran Kenneth Laurion his reportedly insensitive remarks and dreadful bedside manner had the vet’s son, Dennis Laurion, up in arms. The younger Laurion took his wrath to the web and posted unfavorable reviews about Dr. McKee on several rate-your-physician websites. Dennis Laurion contended that Dr. McKee failed to treat the elder Laurion with concern and respect.
According to Laurion, Dr. McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth McKee was moved to a ward after a stint in the intensive care unit and said to his patient, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”
Laurion also reported that the doctor dismissed the stroke patient’s need for therapy before pulling Kenneth Laurion up to his feet and forcing him to walk without any regard for whether the patient’s hospital gown was tied at the back. Dennis Laurion even went so far as to write that when he “mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!’”
"Angered by Laurion’s Internet critique, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis Laurion for $50,000. In his case Dr. McKee alleged that after treating Kenneth Laurion for his stroke, Dennis Laurion made “false and malicious statements” about the doctor to “nineteen different professional and medical organizations, regulatory agencies, and websites.”
"Upon hearing the case, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed Dr. McKee’s lawsuit because he found Dennis Laurion’s comments to be a matter of opinion and thereby protected by the First Amendment. But in January of 2012 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Judge Hylden’s decision and ruled that a jury should evaluate that certain statements made by Dennis Laurion for their truthfulness and defamatory potential and returned the case to the lower court for further consideration.
"McKee v. Laurion is now scheduled to go to trail in January of 2013. But the Laurions are not backing down. They are already busy filing petitions with the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Laurions contend that the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an error in their determination that Dennis Laurion made false statements about his father’s allegedly “not-so-nice” neurologist. It appears that the only evidence the appeals court had to support their decision was Dr. McKee’s assertion that Dennis Laurion lied. And when you consider that a stroke sufferer will be dragged into court to give testimony on this issue just after his 88th birthday, it seems that Dr. McKee’s private investigator might have an easy time finding that nurse." ---DefamationLaw.net
Doctor's suit tests limits of online criticism
McClatchy Tribune News Service
March 30, 2012
MINNEAPOLIS — Two years ago, Dennis Laurion logged on to a rate-your-doctor website to vent about a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee.
McKee had examined Laurion's father, Kenneth, when he was hospitalized after a stroke. The family, Laurion wrote, wasn't happy with his bedside manner. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!' " he wrote.
McKee wasn't amused. He sued Laurion for defamation, and now the case is pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
McKee, 50, is one of a small number of doctors who have gone to court to fight online critics, in cases that are testing the limits of free speech on the Internet. "Doctors are not used to public criticism," said Eric Goldman, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California, who tracks such lawsuits. "So it's a new phenomenon for them."
While such cases are rare, Goldman said, they've been popping up around the country as patient review sites such as vitals.com and rateyourdoctor.com have flourished. Defamation suits are "kind of the nuclear option," Goldman said. "It's the thing that you go to when everything else has failed."
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," Tanick said. 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."
[Maura Larkins comment: Wait a minute. Dr. McKee is complaining that someone filed a complaint about a doctor??? Patients are just supposed to silently accept whatever a doctor dishes out?]
McKee calls Laurion "a liar and a bully," and says he has spent more than $7,000 to "scrub" the Internet of more than 100 vitriolic comments, many traced to a single computer (IP address) in Duluth.
"Somebody who holds a grudge against you can very maliciously go on the Internet, post anything they want, and ... basically redefine who you are," he said.
Laurion, 65, a retired Coast Guard chief petty officer, says he deleted the Internet comments shortly after the lawsuit was filed and "never rewrote them."
At the same time, his lawyer, John D. Kelly, defends the postings. He says it was Laurion's perception that "the doctor's speech and conduct were tactless and inconsiderate." And that, he argued, is "constitutionally protected."
So far, Minnesota courts have had mixed reactions. A district court in Duluth dismissed McKee's lawsuit last year, but the state Appeals Court reinstated it in January. Laurion has appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The dispute isn't about McKee's medical decisions, but about something less tangible: his body language and comments when he walked into Kenneth Laurion's room at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth on April 20, 2010.
In his online postings, Dennis Laurion wrote that McKee "seemed upset" because he thought his father, then 84, was still in intensive care.
"Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, 'When you weren't in the ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died,' " according to Laurion's account. "When we gaped at him, he said, 'Well, 44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.' "
Laurion, who was visiting with his wife and mother, wrote that McKee was brusque and dismissive during the exam, especially when his father raised concerns that his hospital gown was hanging open at the back. "Dr. McKee said, 'That doesn't matter,' " according to Laurion's account. "My wife said, 'It matters to us,' " and they left the room.
McKee discovered the online comments when a patient brought them to his attention. He filed suit, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. "The way he quoted me was completely inaccurate," McKee said in an interview. At the time, he said, nobody in the room "appeared to me to be the slightest bit upset."
[Maura Larkins comment: Figure it out, Dr. McKee. Their husband and father was in your care. They couldn't afford to make you angry. You were in a position of power.]
According to court documents, McKee admitted making a "jocular comment" about only two ways to leave the intensive care unit, but said he only meant that he was relieved to find Laurion in his hospital bed. He denied citing any statistic about stroke deaths and said the entire story was distorted beyond recognition.
"Every physician gets an occasional complaint from a patient, or even a patient's family member, but this was so ridiculous," he said. "This just seemed so extremely over the top, and really meant to be harmful."
In the first legal battle, district Judge Eric Hylden in Duluth sided with Laurion. "The statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man's description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by a physician," he wrote in dismissing the suit in April 2011.
The appeals court disagreed, ruling in January that some of the statements were fair game for a defamation suit and sending the dispute back for trial.
Tanick, McKee's lawyer, said the case isn't just about someone voicing an opinion. He said Laurion defamed the doctor by accusing him of things "that never happened."
Laurion's lawyer, however, says it's a matter of perception. "Something happened in that room that disturbed the four members of the family significantly," he said.
More than a dozen defamation suits have been filed since 2004 by doctors or dentists over online reviews; most have been dismissed or settled, according to Goldman.
Some medical practices have even tried to silence critics by requiring patients to sign a form forbidding them from posting comments on the Internet.
But Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who promoted the controversial forms, says he's since had a change of heart; he "retired" them last year in the face of widespread criticism...
Here's a similar case from California.
David McKee v. Dennis Laurion
"When a doctor hires a private detective to find out which one of the 4,400 nurses in St. Louis County, MN may have called him a “tool” you know the man is serious about defending his reputation. That is just what Dr. David McKee of Northland Neurology and Myology is doing in preparation for the next leg of his defamation lawsuit against the son of a former patient, Dennis Laurion.
"When neurologist Dr. David McKee treated World War II veteran Kenneth Laurion his reportedly insensitive remarks and dreadful bedside manner had the vet’s son, Dennis Laurion, up in arms. The younger Laurion took his wrath to the web and posted unfavorable reviews about Dr. McKee on several rate-your-physician websites. Dennis Laurion contended that Dr. McKee failed to treat the elder Laurion with concern and respect.
According to Laurion, Dr. McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth McKee was moved to a ward after a stint in the intensive care unit and said to his patient, “When you weren’t in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died.”
Laurion also reported that the doctor dismissed the stroke patient’s need for therapy before pulling Kenneth Laurion up to his feet and forcing him to walk without any regard for whether the patient’s hospital gown was tied at the back. Dennis Laurion even went so far as to write that when he “mentioned Dr. McKee’s name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, ‘Dr. McKee is a real tool!’”
"Angered by Laurion’s Internet critique, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis Laurion for $50,000. In his case Dr. McKee alleged that after treating Kenneth Laurion for his stroke, Dennis Laurion made “false and malicious statements” about the doctor to “nineteen different professional and medical organizations, regulatory agencies, and websites.”
"Upon hearing the case, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden dismissed Dr. McKee’s lawsuit because he found Dennis Laurion’s comments to be a matter of opinion and thereby protected by the First Amendment. But in January of 2012 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Judge Hylden’s decision and ruled that a jury should evaluate that certain statements made by Dennis Laurion for their truthfulness and defamatory potential and returned the case to the lower court for further consideration.
"McKee v. Laurion is now scheduled to go to trail in January of 2013. But the Laurions are not backing down. They are already busy filing petitions with the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Laurions contend that the Minnesota Court of Appeals made an error in their determination that Dennis Laurion made false statements about his father’s allegedly “not-so-nice” neurologist. It appears that the only evidence the appeals court had to support their decision was Dr. McKee’s assertion that Dennis Laurion lied. And when you consider that a stroke sufferer will be dragged into court to give testimony on this issue just after his 88th birthday, it seems that Dr. McKee’s private investigator might have an easy time finding that nurse." ---DefamationLaw.net
Doctor's suit tests limits of online criticism
McClatchy Tribune News Service
March 30, 2012
MINNEAPOLIS — Two years ago, Dennis Laurion logged on to a rate-your-doctor website to vent about a Duluth neurologist, Dr. David McKee.
McKee had examined Laurion's father, Kenneth, when he was hospitalized after a stroke. The family, Laurion wrote, wasn't happy with his bedside manner. "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!' " he wrote.
McKee wasn't amused. He sued Laurion for defamation, and now the case is pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
McKee, 50, is one of a small number of doctors who have gone to court to fight online critics, in cases that are testing the limits of free speech on the Internet. "Doctors are not used to public criticism," said Eric Goldman, an associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California, who tracks such lawsuits. "So it's a new phenomenon for them."
While such cases are rare, Goldman said, they've been popping up around the country as patient review sites such as vitals.com and rateyourdoctor.com have flourished. Defamation suits are "kind of the nuclear option," Goldman said. "It's the thing that you go to when everything else has failed."
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," Tanick said. 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."
[Maura Larkins comment: Wait a minute. Dr. McKee is complaining that someone filed a complaint about a doctor??? Patients are just supposed to silently accept whatever a doctor dishes out?]
McKee calls Laurion "a liar and a bully," and says he has spent more than $7,000 to "scrub" the Internet of more than 100 vitriolic comments, many traced to a single computer (IP address) in Duluth.
"Somebody who holds a grudge against you can very maliciously go on the Internet, post anything they want, and ... basically redefine who you are," he said.
Laurion, 65, a retired Coast Guard chief petty officer, says he deleted the Internet comments shortly after the lawsuit was filed and "never rewrote them."
At the same time, his lawyer, John D. Kelly, defends the postings. He says it was Laurion's perception that "the doctor's speech and conduct were tactless and inconsiderate." And that, he argued, is "constitutionally protected."
So far, Minnesota courts have had mixed reactions. A district court in Duluth dismissed McKee's lawsuit last year, but the state Appeals Court reinstated it in January. Laurion has appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The dispute isn't about McKee's medical decisions, but about something less tangible: his body language and comments when he walked into Kenneth Laurion's room at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth on April 20, 2010.
In his online postings, Dennis Laurion wrote that McKee "seemed upset" because he thought his father, then 84, was still in intensive care.
"Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, 'When you weren't in the ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died,' " according to Laurion's account. "When we gaped at him, he said, 'Well, 44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.' "
Laurion, who was visiting with his wife and mother, wrote that McKee was brusque and dismissive during the exam, especially when his father raised concerns that his hospital gown was hanging open at the back. "Dr. McKee said, 'That doesn't matter,' " according to Laurion's account. "My wife said, 'It matters to us,' " and they left the room.
McKee discovered the online comments when a patient brought them to his attention. He filed suit, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. "The way he quoted me was completely inaccurate," McKee said in an interview. At the time, he said, nobody in the room "appeared to me to be the slightest bit upset."
[Maura Larkins comment: Figure it out, Dr. McKee. Their husband and father was in your care. They couldn't afford to make you angry. You were in a position of power.]
According to court documents, McKee admitted making a "jocular comment" about only two ways to leave the intensive care unit, but said he only meant that he was relieved to find Laurion in his hospital bed. He denied citing any statistic about stroke deaths and said the entire story was distorted beyond recognition.
"Every physician gets an occasional complaint from a patient, or even a patient's family member, but this was so ridiculous," he said. "This just seemed so extremely over the top, and really meant to be harmful."
In the first legal battle, district Judge Eric Hylden in Duluth sided with Laurion. "The statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man's description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by a physician," he wrote in dismissing the suit in April 2011.
The appeals court disagreed, ruling in January that some of the statements were fair game for a defamation suit and sending the dispute back for trial.
Tanick, McKee's lawyer, said the case isn't just about someone voicing an opinion. He said Laurion defamed the doctor by accusing him of things "that never happened."
Laurion's lawyer, however, says it's a matter of perception. "Something happened in that room that disturbed the four members of the family significantly," he said.
More than a dozen defamation suits have been filed since 2004 by doctors or dentists over online reviews; most have been dismissed or settled, according to Goldman.
Some medical practices have even tried to silence critics by requiring patients to sign a form forbidding them from posting comments on the Internet.
But Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who promoted the controversial forms, says he's since had a change of heart; he "retired" them last year in the face of widespread criticism...
Here's a similar case from California.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
California patient wins anti-SLAPP motion against doctor she criticized
Also see interesting case in Minnesota, Dr. David McKee v. Dennis Laurion.
Filler v. Walker
Citizen Media Law Project
Dr. Aaron Filler filed a complaint against former patient Susan Walker in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 31, 2011. In his complaint, Filler alleged defamation and interference with prospective economic advantage in response to Walker's review of Dr. Filler on a physician rating site.
On August 24, 2011, Walker filed a motion to strike based on California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.16 and 45, California's anti-SLAPP statute. Walker's motion argues that Walker is shielded from liability as the "dissemination of consumer information about medical care is a vital ‘public issue' and the internet is a ‘public forum,' and that Dr. Filler is a public figure subject to the burden of proving actual malice. Filler filed an opposition to this motion on September 16, 2011, also requesting leave to amend the complaint to plead more specific factual allegations to establish actual malice. Walker replied to Filler's opposition on September 22, 2011.
After a hearing on April 19, 2011, Walker's motion to strike was granted. In the order filed on May 8, 2012, Judge Elizabeth White held that Filler's claims arose from Walker's act of free speech in connection with a public issue under CCP § 425.16 and that Filler did not establish a probability of prevailing on these claims. In accordance with this order, Judge White later ordered Filler to pay $50,259.65 to Walker for attorneys' fees and costs.
Party Issuing Legal Threat: Dr. Aaron Filler; Aaron Filler, MD, PHD, APC; Imagebased Sugicenter Corporation; Neurograph Institute Medical Associates
Party Receiving Legal Threat: Susan Walker; Does 1-25
Filler v. Walker
Citizen Media Law Project
Dr. Aaron Filler filed a complaint against former patient Susan Walker in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 31, 2011. In his complaint, Filler alleged defamation and interference with prospective economic advantage in response to Walker's review of Dr. Filler on a physician rating site.
On August 24, 2011, Walker filed a motion to strike based on California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.16 and 45, California's anti-SLAPP statute. Walker's motion argues that Walker is shielded from liability as the "dissemination of consumer information about medical care is a vital ‘public issue' and the internet is a ‘public forum,' and that Dr. Filler is a public figure subject to the burden of proving actual malice. Filler filed an opposition to this motion on September 16, 2011, also requesting leave to amend the complaint to plead more specific factual allegations to establish actual malice. Walker replied to Filler's opposition on September 22, 2011.
After a hearing on April 19, 2011, Walker's motion to strike was granted. In the order filed on May 8, 2012, Judge Elizabeth White held that Filler's claims arose from Walker's act of free speech in connection with a public issue under CCP § 425.16 and that Filler did not establish a probability of prevailing on these claims. In accordance with this order, Judge White later ordered Filler to pay $50,259.65 to Walker for attorneys' fees and costs.
Party Issuing Legal Threat: Dr. Aaron Filler; Aaron Filler, MD, PHD, APC; Imagebased Sugicenter Corporation; Neurograph Institute Medical Associates
Party Receiving Legal Threat: Susan Walker; Does 1-25
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Was Marsh and McLennan's behavior a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks designed to harm customers?
Does this sound like defamation to you?
Eliot Spitzer is being sued for libel for writing about a huge insurance broker. Here's what he wrote:
"Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Spitzer sued for libel over his Slate column
By Jonathan Stempel
Aug 22, 2011
Reuters
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was hit with two libel lawsuits seeking $90 million by former Marsh & McLennan Cos (MMC.N) executives over a column posted on Slate.com about an insurance bid-rigging scandal.
The lawsuits arose from Spitzer's Aug. 22, 2010, column, "They Still Don't Get It," advocating prosecution of corporate wrongdoers and defending his own enforcement activity against Marsh and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG.N)
William Gilman, a former Marsh executive marketing director, and Edward McNenney, a former Marsh global placement director, contended that they were defamed by the column, which appeared thee months after a judge threw out their convictions on felony antitrust charges. Neither is named in the column.
Slate.com is owned by Washington Post Co (WPO.N), and its parent Slate Group LLC is a defendant in both cases.
Gilman filed his $60 million lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, while McNenney filed papers seeking $30 million with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Both cases were filed on Friday and made public on Monday.
Spitzer, in a phone interview, declined to comment after the first of the lawsuits, Gilman's, became public. Rima Calderon, a Washington Post spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Gilman had worked at Marsh for 28 years and McNenney for 14 years when Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, in 2004 opened a probe into the company's practices -- including alleged kickbacks for steering of clients to favored insurers.
Marsh, then the largest U.S. insurance broker, agreed in January 2005 to pay $850 million in a civil settlement with Spitzer, and eight insurance executives including Gilman and McNenney were indicted eight months later in the probe.
Both men were found guilty in February 2008, but the presiding judge threw out that conviction in July 2010, citing new evidence. That case was dismissed in January. The other indicted executives either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed. Twenty-one others pleaded guilty. [ID:nN14291031]
"SCAPEGOATS"
In his complaint, Gilman said Spitzer defamed him in writing, stating that "Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Gilman also said Spitzer defamed him in writing by stating that "many employees of Marsh" have been "convicted and sentenced to jail terms," when none had.
Spitzer had written the column shortly after an editorial critical of him in The Wall Street Journal.
"While Mr. Spitzer's statements do not refer to Mr. Gilman by name," Gilman's complaint said, "Mr. Gilman is readily identifiable as the subject of the defamatory comments."
"Mr. Spitzer was well aware of his own allegations as attorney general and the resolution of those allegations in favor of Mr. Gilman and yet, recklessly disregarded these facts," the complaint said.
Punitive damages account for half the amounts sought in each lawsuit. "I don't know what possessed him to make the statements that he made," Jeffrey Liddle, a lawyer for Gilman and McNenney, said in an interview, referring to Spitzer.
In June, Gilman and McNenney accused Marsh in a separate lawsuit of colluding with Spitzer to make them "scapegoats" and avert potential criminal charges against the company. That case seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other damages.
Last month, Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N) CNN canceled Spitzer's low-rated television talk show "In the Arena," after less than one year on the air. [ID:nN1E7651A4] Spitzer resigned as New York's governor in March 2008 after a scandal in which it was revealed that he had hired a high-priced prostitute.
The cases are Gilman v. Spitzer et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05843; and McNenney v. Spitzer et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109628/2011. The earlier lawsuit is Gilman et al v. Marsh & McLennan Cos et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-08158.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Dave Zimmerman and Matthew Lewis)
Eliot Spitzer is being sued for libel for writing about a huge insurance broker. Here's what he wrote:
"Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Spitzer sued for libel over his Slate column
By Jonathan Stempel
Aug 22, 2011
Reuters
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was hit with two libel lawsuits seeking $90 million by former Marsh & McLennan Cos (MMC.N) executives over a column posted on Slate.com about an insurance bid-rigging scandal.
The lawsuits arose from Spitzer's Aug. 22, 2010, column, "They Still Don't Get It," advocating prosecution of corporate wrongdoers and defending his own enforcement activity against Marsh and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG.N)
William Gilman, a former Marsh executive marketing director, and Edward McNenney, a former Marsh global placement director, contended that they were defamed by the column, which appeared thee months after a judge threw out their convictions on felony antitrust charges. Neither is named in the column.
Slate.com is owned by Washington Post Co (WPO.N), and its parent Slate Group LLC is a defendant in both cases.
Gilman filed his $60 million lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, while McNenney filed papers seeking $30 million with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Both cases were filed on Friday and made public on Monday.
Spitzer, in a phone interview, declined to comment after the first of the lawsuits, Gilman's, became public. Rima Calderon, a Washington Post spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Gilman had worked at Marsh for 28 years and McNenney for 14 years when Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, in 2004 opened a probe into the company's practices -- including alleged kickbacks for steering of clients to favored insurers.
Marsh, then the largest U.S. insurance broker, agreed in January 2005 to pay $850 million in a civil settlement with Spitzer, and eight insurance executives including Gilman and McNenney were indicted eight months later in the probe.
Both men were found guilty in February 2008, but the presiding judge threw out that conviction in July 2010, citing new evidence. That case was dismissed in January. The other indicted executives either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed. Twenty-one others pleaded guilty. [ID:nN14291031]
"SCAPEGOATS"
In his complaint, Gilman said Spitzer defamed him in writing, stating that "Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Gilman also said Spitzer defamed him in writing by stating that "many employees of Marsh" have been "convicted and sentenced to jail terms," when none had.
Spitzer had written the column shortly after an editorial critical of him in The Wall Street Journal.
"While Mr. Spitzer's statements do not refer to Mr. Gilman by name," Gilman's complaint said, "Mr. Gilman is readily identifiable as the subject of the defamatory comments."
"Mr. Spitzer was well aware of his own allegations as attorney general and the resolution of those allegations in favor of Mr. Gilman and yet, recklessly disregarded these facts," the complaint said.
Punitive damages account for half the amounts sought in each lawsuit. "I don't know what possessed him to make the statements that he made," Jeffrey Liddle, a lawyer for Gilman and McNenney, said in an interview, referring to Spitzer.
In June, Gilman and McNenney accused Marsh in a separate lawsuit of colluding with Spitzer to make them "scapegoats" and avert potential criminal charges against the company. That case seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other damages.
Last month, Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N) CNN canceled Spitzer's low-rated television talk show "In the Arena," after less than one year on the air. [ID:nN1E7651A4] Spitzer resigned as New York's governor in March 2008 after a scandal in which it was revealed that he had hired a high-priced prostitute.
The cases are Gilman v. Spitzer et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05843; and McNenney v. Spitzer et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109628/2011. The earlier lawsuit is Gilman et al v. Marsh & McLennan Cos et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-08158.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Dave Zimmerman and Matthew Lewis)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Insurance company lawyers should have settled instead of continuing harrassment
Chula Vista, Calif., Goodrich Employee Wins Harassment Lawsuit.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, February, 2003
By Michael Kinsman, The San Diego Union-Tribune Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Feb. 8--Goodrich Aerostructures in Chula Vista just took a half-million-dollar hit just because it didn't listen to one of its employees.
The aerospace manufacturer recently was on the losing end of a lawsuit filed by maintenance technician Bob Haist, who said he was slandered by his manager.
A San Diego Superior Court jury awarded Haist $165,000 for the slander and another $335,000 for malice.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, February, 2003
By Michael Kinsman, The San Diego Union-Tribune Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Feb. 8--Goodrich Aerostructures in Chula Vista just took a half-million-dollar hit just because it didn't listen to one of its employees.
The aerospace manufacturer recently was on the losing end of a lawsuit filed by maintenance technician Bob Haist, who said he was slandered by his manager.
A San Diego Superior Court jury awarded Haist $165,000 for the slander and another $335,000 for malice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)