McKee v. Laurion, 2013 Minn. LEXIS 38

This case asks whether six allegedly defamatory online statements and letters about Dr. McKee are actionable.
Laurion posted statements after Dr. McKee treated Laurion’s father following a hemorrhagic stroke.
District court dismissed the defamation claims as to all statements.
Court of Appeals reversed as to six statements, finding potential falsity and defamatory meaning.
This Court holds none of the six statements are actionable, either for falsity or for defamatory meaning, reversing.
The statements are viewed individually, and the entire posting is also not actionable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Statements 1, 2, and 4 are false.	McKee contends falsity exists for these statements.	Laurion argues substantial truth or minor inaccuracies prevail.	No genuine issue of material fact as to falsity.
Whether Statements 3, 5, and 6 convey defamatory meaning.	McKee argues these statements harm his reputation.	Laurion argues they are not capable of defamatory meaning.	Statements 3, 5, and 6 are not capable of defamatory meaning.
Whether the posting as a whole renders the statements actionable.	The aggregate posting reinforces defamation.	Whole-posting view does not create liability.	The posting as a whole is not actionable.

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (substantial truth; minor inaccuracies do not defeat falsity defense)
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., 766 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2009) (elements of defamation; harm to reputation requirement)
Crawley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. 2012) (falsity and publication requirements applied to defamation)
Utecht v. Shopko Dept. Store, 324 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 1982) (defamatory meaning assessment; context matters)
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 1980) (defamation standards; language capable of defamatory meaning; context)
Clancy v. Daily News Corp., 202 Minn. 1, 277 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 1938) (substantial truth and context in evaluating defamation)