Tennessee Doctor Decides He Wants To Take The State's Anti-SLAPP Law For A Spin, Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Over A Negative Review
from the like-SLAPPing-yourself-in-the-face dept
More nonsense is being perpetrated in Tennessee, the recent home to an inordinate amount of stupid defamation lawsuits. The timing on this one is a bit off. Tennessee just adopted a new anti-SLAPP law -- one that actually has some teeth.
After receiving a stinging -- but not apparently defamatory -- review of his services, Dr. Kaveer Nandigam of Nandigam Neurology decided to sue his patient for $25,000. Here's the review (which is still live on Yelp) that prompted the lawsuit:
This "Dr's" behavior today was totally unprofessional and unethical to put it mildly. I will be reporting him to the State of TN Medical Review Board and be filing a formal complaint. How this guy is in business is beyond me. Since when did they start allowing Doctors, to throw a complete temper tantrum in front of Patients and slam things when they get upset? He does not belong in the medical field at all.
Here's the background on the alleged temper tantrum, as told to Matthew Torres of Nashville's News Channel 5.
After being referred to Nandigam Neurology, [Kelly] Beavers brought her 67-year-old father for dizziness and memory loss, which may have been early signs of dementia. There have been prior interactions with the staff but never with the doctor until the last visit. Beavers says the interaction seemed fine at first, but that the doctor then threw a temper tantrum and slammed his clipboard when he realized she was recording the appointment on her cell phone, which is something she has done with other doctor visits.
"Sometimes we all have things we forget, so that's why I record every doctor's visit. I want to make sure that I'm doing everything right," she explained. "He literally snapped and demanded my phone."
The issue isn't the recording. Tennessee is a one-party consent state, so Beavers didn't need to ask permission before recording her father's visit to Nandigam Neurology. The doctor's demand she delete the recording is what's out of line here. Beavers did delete the recording, but she wasn't happy, and she turned to Yelp to express her displeasure.
Nandigam's lawsuit (which multiple sites have covered but apparently no one can be bothered to post the complaint) claims Beavers' review contains "false, disparaging, and misleading statements." This is boilerplate and isn't going to get the plaintiff very far -- not when the review contains nothing more than Beavers' opinion on the doctor's behavior. She's not part of the state's medical board so she can't actually make a factual declaration about unethical behavior. She can only present her subjective take on medical/professional ethics and she obviously felt being yelled at and told to delete a recording crossed that line.
The more interesting claim is this one:
The lawsuit also suggested that the second defendant "was specifically recruited" by Beavers to post false and misleading statements.
This drags the son of one of Beavers' friends into the lawsuit. Allegedly, her friend's son posted a negative review to Google after hearing about her experience. Dr. Nandigam frames this as a "conspiracy." It's a hot take and it probably won't play well in court.
The downside is Beavers will have to defend herself against this bogus lawsuit. She's started a GoFundMe for legal fees. Hopefully, the state's new anti-SLAPP law will allow her to escape this suit before she has to spend too much money. And, if the court decides in her favor, she should be able to recover her legal fees from a doctor who has done more to damage his own reputation than Beavers' single negative review ever could have done.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, kaveer nandigam, kelly beavers, reviews, slapp, suing patients, tennessee
Companies: nandigam neurology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Frivolously suing someone for mildly criticizing you on the Internet is an interesting way of trying to prove you don't throw temper tantrums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do I go to recommend that anyone found guilty of anti-slapp laws should always be punished financially but add in the target of the suit gets to SLAP them as hard as they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of SLAPPING going on lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does make me wonder if those filing the lawsuits were slapped too much or not enough growing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Lawyer///
trying to get money to sit in the courts for something he KNOWS isnt going to work..
Can we sue the lawyer for this?? Nope..contract signed, and he will get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's started a GoFundMe for legal fees. Hopefully, the state's new anti-SLAPP law will allow her to escape this suit before she has to spend too much money.
All these lawyers hate this lawsuit, but not enough to represent the woman pro bono?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All which lawyers? Did you see a lawyer cited in this article? Did you see someone claiming to be a lawyer cited in this article? Because I didn't see either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will probably save the woman is that she disclosed the underlying facts, rendering her comments an opinion. If you say "he's an alcoholic" you might be defaming him, but if you say "I saw him down fourteen shots in a half-hour in a bar, what an alcoholic!" that wouldn't be defamatory since the fourteen shots were factual (in this hypothetical example), and the "alcoholic" claim would be an opinion based on the disclosed facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But their claim would be "prove i downed 14 shots," as that is a factual claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and the response would be, "no, you prove you didn't," since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove falsity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streissand anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]