Little Rock doctor's defamation suit against Democrat-Gazette dismissed

A judge Wednesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit against the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, but not before he said the newspaper showed "a lack of class and professionalism" in the way it dealt with an aggrieved doctor.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox granted motions by Philip Kaplan, an attorney for the newspaper, for dismissal of all claims in a lawsuit filed by Dr. Lee Charles Nayles of Little Rock.

Nayles, represented by Austin Porter Jr., sued in March 2014 over an article published on June 7, 2013.

The article reported on the previous day's meeting of the Arkansas State Medical Board, which held a hearing on practices at Nayles' clinic at 1400 Main St.

At issue in the suit was the inclusion in the article of language from the board's regulations concerning the prescribing of excessive amounts of controlled substances, Regulation 2.4. When the board issued an order in the matter on June 22, 2013, it said Nayles had violated Regulation 2.6, "in that he failed to keep accurate records in the monitoring of patients."

The board reprimanded Nayles and ordered that he reimburse the board for the cost of the investigation and hearing -- $2,035.

"Being viewed as a 'dope-dealing doctor,' certainly causes greater harm to one's reputation, as opposed to being a doctor not having the proper records in a patient's files, which is what Dr. Nayles was initially found by the State Medical Board to have violated," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit claimed that the article was false and defamatory, and that the newspaper was negligent by publishing the article before the board's written opinion was issued.

The doctor suffered economic losses, as well as emotional distress, the lawsuit said, and it asked for damages to be proven at trial.

Witnesses Wednesday included David Bailey, the newspaper's managing editor, who disagreed that the story should have been published only after the written order. By then, he said, "it would be history."

Also testifying was Lana Nayles, wife of the doctor and the clinic's office manager. She testified about a loss of patients and revenue after publication of the article, but Fox later found there was no testimony of lost profits.

Dr. Nayles testified that he called the newspaper and talked with the reporter who wrote the story, Evie Blad.

"She was extremely combative and went off on another tangent," Nayles said, adding "she offered to do absolutely nothing about it."

Blad was not called as a witness. She no longer works for the Democrat-Gazette.

Kaplan asked Nayles if he asked for a correction of the article.

"I did not," the doctor replied.

With the jury out of the courtroom, Kaplan asked for a directed verdict on the question of economic damages, and then for a dismissal of all claims, both of which Fox granted.

Fox said nothing else in the article was challenged, and so it fell under the fair report privilege.

"It just doesn't rise to the level of defamatory," he said.

Metro on 08/25/2016

Upcoming Events