WWE doctor suing Punk/Cabana

[sek69]

Looks like business is about to pick up. WWE, who is famous for waving their lawyer dicks in everyone's faces, settled with Punk so this should be fun times if it goes anywhere.

[Benbeeach]

If Punk can produce a medical record that says MRSA anywhere on it, doc's gonna have a rough time

[sek69]

Just thought of something nefarious, could WWE's settlement from Punk (which presumably includes clauses saying he can't speak negatively about anyone in the company) keep him from defending himself here?

[Shake Them Ropes]

It wouldn't.

[goodhelmet]

Punk didn't sign a clause saying he wouldn't speak negatively about the company.

[Childs]

Slander/libel cases are extremely hard to win. It will be interesting to see what kind of legs this one has. Hard to imagine Punk flat out made up the story, but who knows.

[SteveJRogers]

A lot of it has to rest on the public humiliation and shame since it got picked up all over. I don't know if he has a private practice, but a case can be made with a correlation between the podcast stuff and a sudden down swing in work.

[Matt D]

He gets a vaguely amusing z-pack chant whenever he shows up now.

[SteveJRogers]

 

Slander/libel cases are extremely hard to win. It will be interesting to see what kind of legs this one has. Hard to imagine Punk flat out made up the story, but who knows.[/quote

 

True. FWIW, that's why NO baseball player has brought legal action against PED suspicions and allegations in media content. The proof in the case would be if the player lost their job, or couldn't get the same salary base they once commanded in baseball, or loss of endorsements due to said whispers.

[sek69]

Punk didn't sign a clause saying he wouldn't speak negatively about the company.

 

 

Then it makes no sense for him to file suit since Punk will likely slaughter them in open court.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

Punk didn't sign a clause saying he wouldn't speak negatively about the company.

 

 

Then it makes no sense for him to file suit since Punk will likely slaughter them in open court.

 

He's filing suit for personal libel.

[tigerpride]

Punk could still probably slaughter him in open court

[Johnny Sorrow]

Punk could still probably slaughter him in open court

Not necessarily. Court isn't a podcast or wrestling promo. The lawyers do all the talking.

[Johnny Sorrow]

And did Punk or Cabana mention him by name on the podcast? I don't recall. That's a possible legal sticking point.

[PeteF3]

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

[Bix]

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

[Fantastic]

What a mess... Still, I suspect Punk would have known something like this may have happened. It'll probably get thrown out, but if Amann does have something to go on, they'll probably come to some kind of settlement outside of court.

[Sidebottom]

 

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with Exhibit A:

 

[Steenalized]

 

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

 

I doubt that brings him to the level of public figure within the meaning of defamation. The definition in Illinois as far as I can find is "(1) persons who achieve such a degree of general fame and notoriety in the community that they are considered

public figures for all purposes and in all contexts; and (2) persons who either have voluntarily injected themselves into a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, or have been drawn into such a controversy, thus becoming public figures for a limited range of issues."

And did Punk or Cabana mention him by name on the podcast? I don't recall. That's a possible legal sticking point.

If you can reasonably infer who a defamatory statement is about, then it still counts.

Vince McMahon is a public figure. Amann isn't.

[El McKell]

Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable.

 

I don't think this is that important in this case, there's almost zero chance that if what Punk said wasn't true that he is unaware it wasn't true.

[Steenalized]

 

Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable.

I don't think this is that important in this case, there's almost zero chance that if what Punk said wasn't true that he is unaware it wasn't true.

 

It is important since that's one of the elements of defamation.

[Steenalized]

Slander/libel cases are extremely hard to win. It will be interesting to see what kind of legs this one has. Hard to imagine Punk flat out made up the story, but who knows.

While that's generally true, Amann will likely go after Punk for defamation per se, which includes "indicating that the plaintiff is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties." Punk pretty certainly did that much and with defamation per se the court will presume harm.

[Matt D]

Punk should use the old "It's all a work to set up a match" defense. That'll flimflam them.

[NintendoLogic]

Just to be clear, defamation per se doesn't shift the burden of proof on any of the other elements. It just means that Amann doesn't have to show that he was damaged by Punk's statements. He does have to show that Punk either knew his statements were false or, if he believed them to be true, didn't have reasonable grounds for that belief.

[Mad Dog]

Unless he has documentation that counters what Punk said, I don't think he has a chance of winning. But he had to do this regardless, this will destroy any practice he has.