This is the Case 6.1 Mckee v Laurion

Case Study 6.1: McKee v. Laurion Case Summary from 13th Edition of Text BACKGROUND FACTS: Kenneth Laurion was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke. Two days later, he was transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) of St. Luke's to a private room. The attending physician arranged for Dr. David McKee, a neurologist, to examine him. Kenneth's son, Dennis, and other Laurion family members were present during the examination I After Kenneth was discharged from the hospital, Dennis posted the following statements on "rate-your-doctor" Web sites: [Dr. Mckee) seemed upset that my father had been moved (into a private room). Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, "When you weren't in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died." When we gaped at him, he said, "Well, 44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option." When my father said his gown was just hanging from his neck without a back, Dr. McKee said, "That doesn't matter." My wife said, "It matters to us; let us go into the hall." After leaming of the posts, Dr. Mckee filed a suit in a Minnesota state court against Dennis, asserting defamation. The court issued a summary judgment in Dennis's favor. A state intermediate appellate court reversed this judgment. Dennis appealed. DECISION AND RATIONALE: The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dennis and reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court. The state's highest court pointed out that truth is a complete defense to a defamation action and that true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable. "If the statement is true in substance, minor inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial. Minor Inaccuracies do not amount to falsities so long as the substance, the gist, the sting of the libelous charge is justified." Dr. Mckee acknowledged in his deposition that when he examined Kenneth, he did communicate to those present that some intensive-care-unit patients die, although he denied referendng a specific percentage. The court believed that even without an exact percentage in his statement, Dr. McKee's statement satisfied the test "for substantial truth because it would have the same effect on the reader regard-less of whether a specific percentage reference (or whether the percentage is accurate]" The statements by Laurion's son Dennis were not actionable as defamation. There was no genuine question as to the falsity of the statements--they were substantially true. 1_ What are the required elements to establish a claim of defamation? Which party has to plead and prove these elements ? 2. How did the court decide this case? What was the court's reasoning? 3. Suppose that Laurion had posted online, "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, "Dr. McKee is a real jerk! Would this statement have been defamatory? Explain. (Ctrl)