Gringo v. Hanak

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1452

Syllabus

Defamation; defamation per se; online review; vexatious litigator; presumed damages; presumed malice; summary judgment; Crim.R. 56; improper Crim.R. 56 material; affidavit; privileged statements; motion to quash; abuse of discretion; damages hearing; compensatory damages; punitive damages; plain error. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee, a doctor, in his defamation lawsuit against a former patient who published a Yelp review accusing the doctor of multiple crimes, including rape. The statements amounted to defamation per se and were not privileged. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a witness' motion to quash and in excluding the testimony of one of appellant's friends because neither had personal knowledge of appellee's damages. The court did not commit plain error in awarding compensatory and punitive damages to appellee because there was ample evidence to support the award. The defamatory statements were made with hatred, ill will, a spirit of revenge, or with disregard to the doctor's rights and safety. The parties concede that appellant had already been declared a vexatious litigator at the time the order in this case was entered.