Court rejects case of doc who sued over 'real tool' remark

Publish date:

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out the case of a Duluth doctor who sued after a patient's son called him "a real tool" on a rate-your-doctor website.

In the court ruling, the justices noted that there was no proof that six comments made by the son were false or harmful to the neurologist's reputation.

The unanimous opinion reversed an earlier Appeals Court decision and effectively rejects the lawsuit of Dr. David McKee, who had been in a two-year legal battle with Dennis Laurion. McKee had alleged defamation and claimed the comments interfered with his business.

Observers said the case presented an interesting battle between free speech rights and the rights of workers to protect their professional reputations.

Laurion had been upset with McKee's bedside manner as he was treating his father after a hemorrhagic stroke in April 2010. Among the comments that Laurion posted to an online doctor review site was the assertion by a nurse friend of his that "Dr. McKee is a real tool!"

The court ruled that comment was protected by the First Amendment: "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."

Laurion told the Duluth News Tribune, “The initial excitement has not worn off. I’m very gratified it’s all over.”


'A real tool': Doctor sues over online review

A Duluth doctor was offended when the son of a patient posted in an online review that a nurse supposedly had called him "a real tool," the Associated Press reports. So Dr. David McKee took an unusually aggressive step and is suing for defamation. Now the Minnesota Supreme Court is mulling whether the case should go to trial.

MN Supreme Court rejects repressed memory argument in abuse case

A man from Savage says he was abused by a priest during the 1980's. He filed his lawsuit after the statute of limitations was up, but argued the court should hear the case because he had only recently recovered the repressed memories. The court rejected the argument, writing that the theory of repressed memory is unproven.

Next Up