Minnesota Supreme Court sides with patient on social media defamation suit

Guest post by SPM member @NickDawson, a former health system executive now focused on patient experience, staff happiness and healthcare innovation. He works for Frontier Health in Richmond, Virginia. 

There’s a moment where something changes direction, irreversibly, because of irresistible forces – like when you toss your keys in the air. There is a split second when they stop traveling up, and start falling back towards you. We’re seeing examples of that moment every day in healthcare. One example is that the traditional doctor patient relationship, like your keys in the air, is changing direction. This week, a very poignant example came from Minnesota:

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 [a patient’s family member] because there was no proof that his comments were false or were capable of harming the doctor’s reputation.

Dennis Laurion’s father was ill and in the hospital. Frustrated by what Laurion perceived to be a poor experience, he tweeted his dissatisfaction about Dr. McKee. In the initial case, the trial court dismissed McKee’s defamation case saying:

[the online comments] were not defamation but rather an “emotional discussion of the issues.”

According to Dr. McKee:

“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.”

We all have two options for processing feedback: lean in or run away. Dr. McKee chose to run.

He could have simply said thank you. He could have read the online post with open eyes. Maybe it’s like any other medical intervention – try it and see what works. Instead, he became defensive and sued Laurion.

And here is where the moment occurs, where momentum shifts and things start heading in a different direction. As patients, we need to feel free to express our emotional state —satisfaction, dissatisfaction, wants, needs, fears, and hopes —with our community. Many times that community is online. And that doesn’t have to be a bad thing for doctors and other providers.

Clinicians have a golden opportunity. As patients take to the internet to post about their experiences, they are providing free feedback. They are focus groups, sharing (for better or worse) their experience with physicians. The trick is in the mental shift to seeing feedback, including the good, bad and ugly, as a gift.

According to the Star Tribune, McKee’s lawyer doesn’t see things this way:

”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.

That’s not the point - it’s a license to give feedback, to talk about what works and what doesn’t, in the consumer’s view. Some don’t understand this, but some do and are embracing it. Those are the ones on the other side of the moment, the ones who have shifted direction. They understand that the trajectory has changed – the keys are falling – and they’ve begun working with the changing tide, not trying to hold it back.

 

Print

Posted in: news & gossip | policy issues

 

 

Comments

15 Responses to “Minnesota Supreme Court sides with patient on social media defamation suit”

  1. Marilyn Mann says:

    I think McKee’s lawyer is incorrect. The case turned on standard principles of defamation law and doesn’t really break new ground. For example, one of Laurion’s comments was as follows:

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

    The Minnesota Supreme Court held that calling someone a “real tool” is an expression of opinion and therefore not actionable.

    Justice Page wrote in the opinion:

    “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,” he said. “We conclude that it is an opinion amounting to ‘mere vituperation and abuse’ or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ that cannot be the basis for a defamation action.”

    Statements of opinion are not actionable.

    Note, however, that a person with the financial means to do so can always sue you, whether or not there is a basis in law to do so. Here the person who posted the remark about Dr. McKee was put through several years of litigation with the attendant anxiety and expense.

  2. Nick Dawson says:

    Marilyn, thanks for the thoughtful reply. To be clear, I’m not a lawyer. I think you are on to a sensitive subject: the idea that even the act of suing someone is hugely disruptive to both parties.

  3. David Harlow says:

    Nick –

    Thanks for sharing your perspective on this case. It’s been a much-discussed and -watched case as it has made its way through the court system.

    Your recommendation is spot-on: clinicians should draw on reviews as valuable information that may lead them to tweak one or more parts of their operations. As Marilyn notes, the chances of a finding in the clinician’s favor in a defamation case like this are slim unless there’s a clear misstatement of fact about the clinician (vs opinion).

    As you well know, the other lesson that a clinician should take away from this case is that it is important to define her own online identities, so that it is not defined by a review or two on a third-party website.

    This means development of an online strategy, including social, to harness the power of the internet and use it to promote positive and useful messages about the clinician’s practice, including curating and producing useful content for patients, families, referral sources, etc. (See the recent #HCSM tweetchat transcript on the value of creating and of curating >> #hcsm – January 27, 2013 – http://shrd.by/1HpgCz.)

    Most, if not all, of the engaged patients reading this blog certainly want to connect with their clinicians and other health care providers in this way, but most health care providers just aren’t there yet … which means there’s still opportunity for providers to get into the conversation and distinguish themselves in the process. Yes, there are HIPAA concerns to contend with (there, I said it, the ‘H’ word), but these are not insurmountable.

    This case should be yet another wake-up call to health care providers that they need to own their online identities, and that they need to plan carefully in order to build that online presence in a way that creates the most value for patients.

  4. Nick Dawson says:

    Thanks David
    Love your comment:
    >it is important to define her own online identities, so that it is not defined by a review or two on a third-party website.

    I’d add, our online personas should simply be an extension of our real-life actions. In other words, this physician could have mitigated some risk by having an active online presence. He probably could have avoided it all together by cultivating better relationships throughout his life.

    Your call to action for all of us to create and manage an online presence is a great addition – thanks for sharing it!

    -N

  5. Dennis says:

    As the defendant / appellant, I’ve read all articles and blogs about David McKee MD v Dennis Laurion. Yours is one of the best-written, and I enjoyed your unique analysis.

  6. Nick Dawson says:

    Dennis – thank you so much for the very kind words!

  7. McKee v Laurion cited as precedent by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

    Page 13 of http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/121287.U.pdf says: McKee v. Laurion , 825 N.W.2d 725, 729 – 30 (Minn. 2013) A defamation claim cannot be based on a true statement. “True statements” include statements that are “true in substance” and contain only “minor inaccuracies of expression or detail.” In articulating this standard, the Minnesota courts explain that “substantial truth ” means that “the substance, the gist, the sting , of the libelous charge [is] justified” and the statement “would have the same effect on the mind of the reader or listener as that which the pleaded truth would have produced.”

  8. Chicago Brick says:

    Twin Cities Business “The Top Lawsuits Of 2013″
    by Steve Kaplan December 20, 2013

    Dr. David McKee, a Duluth neurologist, was not laughing when he saw what one former client wrote about him on a doctor-rating website. The reviewer, Dennis Laurion, complained that McKee made statements that he interpreted as rude and quoted a nurse who had called the doctor “a real tool.” As these statements echoed through the Internet, McKee felt his reputation was being tarnished. He sued, and so began a four-year journey that ended this year in the Minnesota Supreme Court.

    Laurion was unhappy with the way McKee treated his father, who was brought to the doctor after he had a stroke. Laurion went to several rate-your-doctor sites to give his opinion. That’s just free speech, isn’t it?

    It sure is, says Laurion’s attorney, John D. Kelly of the Duluth firm Hanft Fride. “The court held that what my client was quoted as saying was not defamatory,” he says. “I do think the Internet makes it much easier for persons exercising poor judgment to broadcast defamatory statements, however… a medium… doesn’t change the quality of a statement from non-defamatory to defamatory.”

    But McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, of Hellmuth & Johnson, says no matter where it was said, defamation is defamation. “The thing that’s often misunderstood is that this was not just about free speech, but about making actual false statements,” Tanick says. “The problem is today’s unfettered opportunity to express opinion, whether or not the substance of what’s said is true or not. We need some boundaries.”

    But boundaries were not on the minds of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Free speech was. Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote, “The point of the post is, ‘This doctor did not treat my father well.’ I can’t grasp why that wouldn’t be protected opinion.” As to referring to the doctor as “a real tool,” Justice Alan Page wrote that the insult “falls into the category of pure opinion because the term … cannot be reasonably interpreted as a fact and it cannot be proven true or false.”

    The takeaway from this case might be the knowledge that behind any rating service lie real people with real feelings. McKee spent more than $60,000 in the effort to clear his name, as he saw it. Dennis Laurion told the Star Tribune he spent the equivalent of two years’ income, some of which he had to borrow from relatives who supplied the money by raiding their retirement funds.

    • “Chicago Brick,” I’ve removed your comment, for a couple of reasons.

      First, you seemed to paste in an entire news story, without indication of permission and without citing its source. If you reply with the URL we’ll permit that.

      Second, identity is important, in my view, so I ask that you use a real person’s name.

  9. Harry Nevus says:

    This is extracted 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.

    See rest of article: http://tcbmag.com/Industries/Law/2013-Lawsuits-Of-The-Year

  10. Dennis says:

    In spite of Supreme Court disagreement and subsequent peer disagreement, Marshall Tanick is STILL saying about David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion: “The thing that’s often misunderstood is that THIS WAS NOT JUST ABOUT FREE SPEECH, BUT ABOUT MAKING ACTUAL FALSE STATEMENTS. The problem is today’s unfettered opportunity to express opinion, whether or not the substance of what’s said is true or not. We need some boundaries.”

    From the American Health Lawyers Association: IN THIS CASE, THE COURT FOUND THE SIX ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE THE “SUBSTANCE, THE GIST, THE STING” OF PLAINTIFF’S VERSION FOR EACH OF THE STATEMENTS AS PROVIDED IN DEPOSITION AND DEFENDANT’S VERSION ESSENTIALLY CARRIED THE SAME MEANING, satisfied the standard for substantial truth, did not show a tendency to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and lower his estimation in the community, or were incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning (e.g., when a nurse told defendant that plaintiff was “a real tool”) based on “how an ordinary person understands the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances.”

    From the Business Insurance Blog: THE MINNESOTA HIGH COURT SAID, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DR. MCKEE’S VERSION OF HIS COMMENT ABOUT THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO MR. LAURION’S. “In other words, Dr. McKee’s account of what he said would produce the same effect on the mind of the reader,” the court said. “The minor inaccuracies of expression (in the statement) as compared to Dr. McKee’s version of what he said do not give rise to a genuine issue as to falsity.”

    From the Duane Morris Media Blog: The doctor said in his deposition that with regard to finding out if Mr. Laurion was alive or dead, “I made a jocular comment… to the effect of I had looked for [Kenneth Laurion] up there in the intensive care unit and was glad to find that, when he wasn’t there, that he had been moved to a regular hospital bed, because you only go one of two ways when you leave the intensive care unit; you either have improved to the point where you’re someplace like this or you leave because you’ve died.” THE COURT SAID THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE STATEMENTS ABOUT DEATH OR TRANSFER BY BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE SO MINOR THAT THERE WAS NO FALSITY IN THE WEBSITE POSTINGS. In other words, the court indicated that the allegation about the statement was true.

  11. Herb Rice says:

    From an article in April 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.”

    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

  12. Dennis Laurion says:

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

    As one of the “trolls” detailed in the article, I have no issue with the accuracy of the text – at least as it pertains to me – but the tone of the title fails to distinguish sincere complaints about bedside manner from attacks on mental stability, attacks on medical prowess, fake websites, allegations of dangerous injections, and use of multiple identities. The author said “McKee and Laurion agree on substance…”

    This entire experience has been distressing to my family. We were initially shocked and blindsided by “jocular” comments made so soon after my father’s stroke by somebody who didn’t know us. We were overwhelmed by my being sued after posting a consumer opinion, and we were shocked by the rapidity with which it happened. It has been the 800 pound gorilla in the room. My parents would be 88-year-old witnesses. My mother and wife prefer no discussion, because they don’t want to think about it. Conversation with my father only reminds him of his anger over this situation. My siblings and children don’t often bring it up, because they don’t know how to say anything helpful. I have been demoralized by three years of being called “Defendant Laurion” in public documents.

    While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member. I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. That’s not correct. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again.

    What it’s like for a patient or family member to be caught up in a case like this was already described by the plaintiff’s lawyer in a Star Tribune newspaper article, “Company sues over info put on Yahoo message board,” August 27, 2001, and repeated in http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2001/08/27/bus_321610.shtml . It said in part: “If a company sues, alleging simple business disparagement or perhaps defamation, its goal isn’t necessarily to win,” said Marshall Tanick, a First Amendment expert at Mansfield & Tanick in Minneapolis. “The strategy is to force the other person to incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements,” he said … “yet very few (cases) go all the way to trial and verdict,” Tanick said.

    The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The financial impact of being sued three years to date has been burdensome, a game of financial attrition that I haven’t wanted to play. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income – the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.

    After receipt of a threat letter, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others include newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.

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

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

    I’ve learned that laws about slander and libel do not conform to one’s expectations. I’ve read that online complaints are safe “if you stick to the facts.” That’s exactly the wrong advice. I did not want to merely post my conclusions. I wanted to stick to my recollection of what I’d heard. I don’t like to read generalities like “I’m upset. He did not treat my father well. He was insensitive. He didn’t spend enough time in my opinion.” However, such generalities are excused as opinion, hyperbole, or angry utterances. If one purports to say what happened, factual recitations can be litigated. The plaintiff must prove the facts are willfully misstated, but the defendant can go broke while waiting through the effort.

Leave a Reply