McKee v. Laurion — Jan. 2013 (Summary)

DEFAMATION

McKee v. Laurion, No. A11-1154 (Minn. Jan. 30, 2013)

The Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed the decision of a lower court and granted summary judgment to the son of a patient in a defamation lawsuit brought by a treating physician.  The physician sued his patient’s son after the son posted various statements on “rate-your-doctor” websites and in letters to various medical institutions.  The posts and letters included what the son believed were inappropriate statements made by the physician during his examination of the father.

The physician argued the statements were defamatory and interfered with his business.  The trial court dismissed the physician’s lawsuit.  This decision was overturned on appeal.   The supreme court reversed, once again dismissing the lawsuit.

With respect to three of the six statements at issue (“I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died”; “44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days, I guess this is the better option”; and “[it] doesn’t matter [whether your gown is tied]”), the supreme court found that there was no issue that the statements were substantially true.   According to the court, minor discrepancies of detail are irrelevant.  Since the physician admitted that the statements were made to the patient and his family (even though he argued that certain details were incorrect), the statements could not be used in a defamation claim.  As the court noted: “Truth is a complete defense to a defamation action and ‘true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.’”

With respect to the remaining three statements, the physician claimed that they were damaging to his reputation.  These statements included:  “Therapists? You don’t need therapy”; “Five minutes later, [the Physician] strode out of the room. He did not talk to my mother or myself”; and “When I mentioned [the Physician’s] name to a friend, who is a nurse, she said, ‘[the Physician] is a ‘real tool.’”  In dismissing the lawsuit, the supreme court held that these three statements were not actionable because they were incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning.