Keep an eye on Dr. Darm
He seems to have had some problems. It ain't the Tweeter's fault, Doc -- suing her isn't going to erase your past, or help your current business any. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore her.
| Posted at 7:42 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
Linda Williams is very smart ...my money is on her.
Posted by Old Shep | October 6, 2011 8:08 AM
From the Trib
"Dr. Darm’s attorney, Thomas McDermott, issued a written statement on his client’s behalf in response to a request for comment. He wrote:
“More than 10 years ago, my client Dr. Jerrold Darm, gave a patient a kiss and hug and was reprimanded by the Oregon Medical Board. He then successfully complied with all the requirements mandated by the Board while continuing to practice. The matter has been resolved for many years."
Really McDermott, sexual quid pro quo is just a kiss and a hug in your book?
Posted by LucsAdvo | October 6, 2011 9:11 AM
From the Oregon Board of Medical Examiner's stipulated order,
"At the conclusion of the treatment, as she was reclined on her back, [Dr. Darm] leaned over patient A and made intimate physical contact with her by inappropriately giving her a kiss, a hug, and touching her. Licensee inferred that this physical contact would be his payment for the treatment. Licensee's conduct in this matter constitutes an inappropriate boundary violation."
Posted by Pragmatic Portlander | October 6, 2011 9:25 AM
This Dr. Darm guy has always struck me as being a bit of a creepy scumbag, and thats just from seeing his bad commericials. The tweeter/blogger didn't do anything other than tweet something that was already in the public record. Just another reason to stay away from this dr I guess.
Posted by NoPoGuy | October 6, 2011 9:26 AM
I was planning to have my three chins Lipo-lifted. Anybody have Dr. V's phone number?
Posted by RJBob | October 6, 2011 9:45 AM
LucsAdvo hit the mark. How can someone credibly say that a work for sex trade is "a hug and a kiss"?? Please. Way to improve the reputation of lawyers. Not.
Posted by jmh | October 6, 2011 9:52 AM
Wonder if the lawyer will try suing Jack or people who have posted here.....naw, no way a lawyer would even think of doing something as hideously imbecilic as that.........
Posted by paul | October 6, 2011 10:18 AM
This appears to be a classic scenario where free speech is protected by the anti-SLAPP law. In my opinion, Dr. Darm is most likely digging himself into a much bigger hole than he found himself in to begin with because it is highly doubtful that an objectively reasonable juror could find in his favor, and it is likely that the tweeter will be entitled to judgment in her favor as a matter of law. As I understand things, the truth is an absolute defense in a libel case.
Posted by Usual Kevin | October 6, 2011 1:05 PM