Cancelled by a Hospital
Why I'm suing Houston Methodist Hospital for defamation
Eight months ago - on November 12th, 2021 - I received the most startling text message I’ve ever received. It was from a reporter at the Houston Chronicle, stating
“Dr Bowden, I’m told you’ve been suspended from Houston Methodist pending further investigation because of your comments on social media. I plan to report that this afternoon but wanted to give you an opportunity to comment.”
I did a double take and argued back in disbelief. “No! News to me. I have not received any notification like that. Who told you that?!” Twenty minutes later, I opened my email to find the suspension notice from Houston Methodist and shortly thereafter I saw their Tweets.
In an unprecendented act of aggression from a hospital against one of their physicians, Methodist Hospital, led by Dr. Marc Boom, announced to the world on Twitter that they were suspending me for spreading ‘dangerous misinformation,’ presumably in response to two recent tweets I had posted stating “ivermectin works” and “vaccine mandates are wrong.”
The ensuing media storm was humiliating and something I was completely unprepared for. I was flooded with interview requests and sought the help of a lawyer and a media consultant.
A lot has changed since, then but before I explain, I’d like to give you the backstory and provide some context for their attack on me.
Several experiences have impacted the way I practice medicine, residency first and foremost. Residents dip their toes into many different areas of medicine but during those 5 years of training, 3 weekly meetings are consistent: journal club, M&M and tumor board. At journal club, residents are taught to have a critical eye towards any and all research. M&M stands for morbidity and mortality, and there, all avoidable mistakes are discussed and learned from. Finally tumor board is a meeting where doctors from all different specialities collaborate to come up with a treatment plan for cancer patients.
These meetings prepared me for where I am now - a critical thinker, learning from patient outcomes, who collaborates with other physicians to help her patients. I wonder how many doctors managed to finish residency without these skills.
One other lesson I learned was to think less of doctors who are not in academic medicine. Physicians outside the ivory tower are considered less capable by those inside. I witnessed this over and over again from my attendings and fellow residents when outside physicians in private practice referred challenging cases our way. I am certain this is one small part of why I’ve been attacked by Methodist.
Once I left residency, there were more lessons to be learned. I gave birth to 4 boys in 5 years and took time off to be a full-time mother. I learned what it felt like to be a patient and it changed the way I practice medicine such that when I decided to go back to work - 6 months before the pandemic started - I designed my practice to prioritize something which is often forgotten in medicine these days - the patient.
When the pandemic started, I had patients coming to me for help. They couldn’t get tested, they couldn’t get treatment. Beginning March 13, 2020, I did my best to help them, starting with contact-free saliva tests and breathing treatments in people’s cars. As an ENT and not a primary care physician, I encouraged people who tested positive to talk to their doctor about treatment. But sadly, most PCPs refused to even see their patients, much less try to treat them, and I became the next best thing. My treatment protocol has evolved over time in response to patient outcomes and collaboration with other doctors but consists of multi-drug therapy including ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, monoclonal antibodies and vitamins. To date, I have treated over 4000 covid patients, and I am proud to report that everyone who received early treatment is still alive.
In the fall of 2020, I began sharing my data with physicians on staff at Methodist and collaborating with them to publish a paper on the ENT manifestations of COVID. When the vaccines rolled out, we started to look at whether patients who received the vaccine were protected from anosmia. Shortly after Methodist instituted the first vaccine mandate in the country, I reached out to one of the physicians I was working with to report a disturbing trend… the majority of people testing positive at my clinic were not only vaccinated but also symptomatic. The physician’s response was telling - he was uncertain as to why that was happening but assured me that only the unvaccinated were in the hospital.
Over time, I began seeing not only breakthrough cases, but a concerning number of people with ongoing issues following the shots. Cardiovascular symptoms top the list - with new-onset hypertension, unstable fluctuations in blood pressure and symptoms of myocarditis the most common. Over 10% of my new patients are now for patients with long-lasting vaccine side effects. Daily headlines of a young athlete dropping dead have become the norm. Someone recently shared a book called Vaccinated Drivers with me. In it are 1143 first-person accounts of adverse reactions soon after the shots. All the accounts have been reported to VAERS and have eerily similar set of symptoms and events occurring shortly after the shots. I highly recommend it if you are wondering if what I’m saying and what you are hearing in the news could be true.
I allot 45 minutes to for a new patient visit. My patients tell me a lot because they have time to and I am willing to listen. The time allows for the building of trust and exchange of information. I hear the struggles people have experienced not so much from COVID but from the tyranny surrounding COVID. I’ve sat with many tearful patients debating whether to have an experimental injection to keep their job. I have heard far too many stories of how patients are mistreated in hospitals. I have first-hand experience seeing patients disabled after the shots.
On November 12, 2021, Methodist Hospital used social media as a weapon to thrust me into the public sector, casting me as someone dangerous and making me a target for everyone who stands against early treatment for COVID. Because of their actions, I will never feel the same going out in public - I worry when attending my kids’ sporting events that people know who I am and think I’m ‘crazy’ or a ‘quack’ as I’ve so often been called since this happened. I don’t attend social gatherings that I might have in the past. I have instilled stronger security measures at my home as I worry about the safety of myself and my children.
I have suffered professionally as well, getting attacked, censored and removed from professional forums and groups and hearing my patients tell me that their doctors think I’m controversial or even deserve to be in prison. Hundreds of people who have never seen me have left negative online reviews that I cannot get removed.
So many have suffered loss of friendships, had fights with family members, and been censorsed when trying to express their views. Many have lost their jobs as well. I’d like to encourage you to read this book, Courage to Face COVID-19. In it are stories much worse than mine and yours, most notably Dr. Peter McCullough, the most highly credentialed physician I know, being brutally taken down by his peers.
My ethical obligation as a doctor is to do what is right for my patients, no matter what the repercussions might be. Hospitals hold an inordinate amount of power over individual physicians; Houston Methodist used that power to punish me and try to silence me for upholding the Hippocratic oath. This lawsuit is about protecting the right of every physician to preserve their name and reputation in the spirit of scientific discourse. I intend to hold Houston Methodist and Dr. Marc Boom accountable so that this never happens to another medical professional again.
Below is the original petition, filed July 25, 2022:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DR. MARY TALLEY BOWDEN ))Plaintiff, ))
v.
THE METHODIST HOSPITAL ) IS DEMANDED d/b/a Houston Methodist Hospital -and- MARC L. BOOM )Defendants. )
TRIAL BY JURY
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiff, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden (“Dr. Bowden”), by counsel, files this Original Petition against Defendants, Methodist Hospital a/k/a Houston Methodist Hospital (“Methodist”) and Marc L. Boom (“Boom”), jointly and severally.
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”).
2. In accordance with Rule 47, Dr. Bowden seeks (a) compensatory damages and punitive damages in the sum of $25,000,000.00, (b) prejudgment interest on the principal sum awarded by the Jury from November 12, 2021 to the date of Judgment, and (c) court costs – arising out of Defendants’ defamation and defamation by implication.
II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
3. Dr. Bowden is a licensed ENT physician who practices in Houston, Texas. She is 50 years old. She completed her residency at Stanford Medical School and is board-certified in both Otolaryngology and Sleep Medicine. She specializes in sinus, sleep and allergy disorders and treats both children and adults. She is the founder of BreatheMD, a medical practice focused on airway health. Since January 2020, she has seen and successfully treated over 4,000 patients with the novel coronavirus (“COVID”). [https://breathemd.org/our-team].
4. In March 2020, Dr. Bowden stepped up and agreed to help patients whose primary care doctors would not see them due to COVID. After doing extensive research and collaborating with other physicians, Dr. Bowden began using Ivermectin as part of a multimodality treatment protocol. She successfully kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital with no dangerous side effects. In July 2021, she noticed a troubling trend: most of her COVID patients were fully vaccinated and yet experiencing symptoms. She reached out to an otolaryngology contact at Methodist, with whom she was collaborating on research papers based on her patient population, to see if the hospital was experiencing the same troubling trend. This physician at Methodist advised that a majority of the patients at the hospital were “unvaccinated”. Dr. Bowden’s contact further stated, “I guess the goal of the vaccines is to prevent against severe disease.”
5. As time went on, Dr. Bowden became increasingly worried about side effects from vaccines that her patients were experiencing. Dr. Bowden developed concerns that the vaccines had significant risks. She felt the government wasn’t being candid about those risks. When vaccine mandates started, she had numerous patients come to her extremely distraught because they were going to lose their jobs if they did not involuntarily submit to the vaccine. Dr. Bowden empathized with these patients and began to speak out against vaccine mandates. She became an opponent of vaccine mandates, and over time, the vaccines themselves. Dr. Bowden began sharing her views and opinions on Twitter, including that vaccine mandates are “wrong”. [See https://twitter.com/MdBreathe].
6. Methodist and Boom retaliated against Dr. Bowden in an unprecedented manner. Without notice, they published false and defamatory statements to the press and on social media, affording no due process, acting contrary to and with reckless disregard for both the letter and spirit of Methodist’s bylaws. Beginning in November 2021, Methodist and Boom, took to Twitter and published a series of statements of fact about Dr. Bowden that injured Dr. Bowden’s reputation, exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, financial injury, and impugned her professional judgment, integrity, honesty and veracity as a licensed medical professional, including the following:
(1) Dr. Bowden’s “opinions [about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments], which are harmful to the community, do not reflect reliable medical evidence”
[
]
(2) “Dr. Bowden … is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science”
[
]
(“Houston Methodist Hospital’s medical staff leadership decided to suspend and investigate Dr. Bowden for her inappropriate behavior, including spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. As a physician, I am personally offended by her behavior and by her misleading comments about COVID-19 and our hospital system”)
(4)
(“CEO Marc Boom said Dr. Mary Talley Bowden was spreading ‘dangerous’ misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments”)
(each a “Statement” and together the “Statements”).
7. As was intended and as was naturally and reasonably foreseeable, Methodist and Boom’s materially false and defamatory Statements and social media posts were republished locally, nationally and worldwide to millions inside and outside medical community, e.g.:
(“Houston Methodist suspends River Oaks doctor for spreading COVID misinformation”);
(“Former Houston Methodist doctor still licensed after using social media to spread COVID-19 misinformation”);
(“Dr. Mary Bowden resigned from Houston Methodist after the hospital said she was spreading misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. Dr. Bowden was suspended last week. In a series of tweets, the hospital said she was spreading ‘dangerous misinformation (about COVID-19 on social media) which is not based in science’”);
(“Doctor resigns from Houston Methodist after being suspended for spreading ‘misinformation’ about COVID-19 methods”);
(“Houston doctor suspended for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ on COVID-19”);
(“Houston doctor accused of spreading dangerous misinformation by Houston Methodist Hospital fires back”);
https://abc13.com/houston-doctor-suspended-dr-mary-bowden-covid-methodist/11230466/
(“Houston doctor suspended for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ responds to allegations”);
(“Texas doctor suspended for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ on COVID-19”);
(“Texas doctor suspended for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ on COVID-19”);
https://fox59.com/news/texas-hospital-bans-doctor-for-spreading-misinformation-about-coronavirus/
(“Texas hospital bans doctor for spreading ‘misinformation’ about coronavirus”);
(“Texas hospital suspends doctor for false COVID information”);
(“Texas doctor suspended for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and refusing to treat vaccinated patients, hospital says”);
(“Dr. Mary Bowden was suspended from Houston Methodist Friday for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation.’ She resigned this week”);
(“Hospital revokes Houston doctor’s privileges for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ about covid on Twitter”);
(“Texas hospital suspends doctor for spreading false information about COVID-19, vaccines”);
(“Houston doctor suspended from hospital for spreading Covid misinformation”);
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/13/us/houston-doctor-suspended-covid-19/index.html
(“Texas doctor suspended for spreading 'misinformation' about Covid-19 submits resignation letter”).
8. Methodist and Boom’s Statements are materially false because:
● Dr. Bowden’s opinions were not and are not harmful to patients or others in the community. Dr. Bowden has extensive first-hand experience treating COVID. She is considered an expert by other physicians who believe in outpatient treatment of COVID. She has kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital, and no one who has received early treatment under her care has died. Dr. Bowden has had no serious adverse reactions from using Ivermectin.
● Dr. Bowden is a clinical advisor for FLCCC (Frontline COVID Critical Care Alliance). Dr. Bowden’s views were and are based in science and on reliable medical evidence, including multiple peer-reviewed studies, statistical data published by the Department of Health and Human Services, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”), and the published opinions of renowned medical professionals and prominent scientists, including Dr. Peter A. McCullough, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an infectious disease epidemiologist who teaches at Oxford.
● Dr. Bowden did not once spread any kind of misinformation. She published true facts with a scientific basis.
● Methodist did not suspend Dr. Bowden for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Rather, in a letter dated November 11, 2021, which did not “suspend” Dr. Bowden’s clinical privileges, Methodist requested information concerning Dr. Bowden’s vaccination status and made an unspecified reference to “public use of vulgar, offensive and abusive language directed at others”.
● Dr. Bowden never published any misleading statements or comments about COVID-19 or Methodist’s hospital system.
● Dr. Bowden never did anything dangerous or that put her patients or anyone else in danger.
9. Taken as a whole, the clear defamatory gist of Methodist and Boom’s Statements is that Dr. Bowden is unfit to be a medical doctor, that her medical judgments and advice are unsafe and/or unsound, and that she peddles misinformation and disinformation, including harmful medical treatments and opinions and, therefore, endangers patients. The qualities disparaged by Methodist and Boom – Dr. Bowden’s medical judgment, advice, credibility, honesty, veracity, integrity, ethics, intelligence, performance and ability to perform as a licensed medical doctor – are peculiarly valuable to her and are absolutely necessary in the practice and profession of any medical professional. The Statements ascribe to Dr. Bowden conduct, characteristics and conditions that are highly prejudicial to her or anyone in her profession.
10. Methodist and Boom’s false Statements were immediately understood by third parties to convey the intended defamatory meaning about Dr. Bowden, see, e.g.:
https://crooksandliars.com/2021/11/houston-hospital-suspends-doctor-spreading
(“Why this woman has been allowed to keep her medical license, or to continue to spread dangerous lies on Twitter without being suspended is beyond me. It seems a hospital in Houston has finally had enough of her”);
(“Thank you @MethodistHosp for always practicing evidence-based medicine and caring for us during the pandemic #science”);
(“Thanks for standing for the truth and preventing folks from spreading falsehoods. It’s one ‘doctor’ undermining the hardwork of 25k employees, and worse, putting everyone’s lives and health at risk”);
(“Report Dr Bowden to the board of medicine, not Twitter”);
(“I applaud the @MethodistHosp for taking action. Q-ackery does not instill trust. Quite the opposite. Dr Bowden can go back to her Veteranary [sic] practice”);
(“Send a message to every quack doctor peddling dangerous COVID disinformation and propaganda and revoke Dr. Bowden’s medical license”);
(“Glad to see this: Houston Methodist Hospital suspended Dr. Mary Bowden who repeatedly & baselessly defended Ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment. More hospitals & boards need to enact disciplinary measures against Drs who spread #COVID19 hoaxes. Enough is enough”);
(“Let’s talk about Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, and those like her, who have gone out of their way to spread disinformation and administer ineffective treatments in the pandemic”);
(“@MethodistHosp suspended Dr Mary Bowden for sharing ‘dangerous misinformation not based in science’ about #CovidVaccine and treatments on social media. BRAVO to CEO Dr Marc Boom for placing public safety first”);
(“A Texas hospital says it has suspended the privileges of Mary Talley Bowden, MD (@MdBreathe) – who spread misinformation about Covid-19 on her social media. That’s progress. This isn’t personal Mary, physicians must protect public health and safety”).
11. Methodist and Boom’s false and defamatory Statements injured Dr. Bowden. She lost patients. She lost business opportunities and substantial income. Her reputation as a physician was severely compromised. The Statements thrust Dr. Bowden into a public controversy and fundamentally changed her life. She is self-conscious in places and at times she was not before. She fears for her safety and the safety and welfare of her children. She worries about schools, physicians and therapists treating her children differently because of the damage done to her reputation (for example, her son was not accepted to any of the four private schools he applied to for high school and Dr. Bowden was informed by a board member at one of them that it was because of the Statements published by Methodist). Dr. Bowden was featured in the Houston Chronicle as one of the most controversial Houstonians of 2021. Methodist and Boom’s egregious and unnecessary attacks insulted, humiliated, shamed and traumatized Dr. Bowden.
12. In this case, Dr. Bowden seeks presumed damages, actual damages (past and future mental anguish and past and future injury to reputation), special damages (including career damage and impairment of future earning capacity) and punitive damages as a result of the defamation and defamation by implication.
III. PARTIES
13. Dr. Bowden is a citizen of Texas. She lives and works in Houston. She is a private individual.
14. Methodist is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business at 6565 Fannin Street, Houston, in Harris County, Texas.
15. Boom is a citizen of Texas. Upon information and belief, he lives in Houston. Boom is CEO of Methodist. His false Statements and defamatory implications were discussed with and approved by Methodist prior to publication. Boom used Methodist property and facilities to publish the Statements on Twitter and the Houston Chronicle. Methodist is liable for Boom’s defamation under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. Defendants are at home in Texas, and are subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction.
17. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §15.002(a)(1) and (3) because the parties are domiciled in Harris County, Texas, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Harris County, where Defendants published the Statements.
18. Prior to filing this action, Dr. Bowden fully complied with the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act (the “DMA”). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 73.051 et seq. On April 18, 2022, Dr. Bowden served on Methodist and Boom at the place of publication a written notice specifying the statements that are defamatory and demanding, inter alia, that those statements be retracted and/or corrected and removed from the Internet.
19. Methodist and Boom failed or refused to retract and correct the false and defamatory Statements.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. Defamation
20. Dr. Bowden restates paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein by reference.
21. Methodist and Boom made, published and republished numerous false factual statements of and concerning Dr. Bowden. These false statements are detailed verbatim above. Methodist and Boom published the false Statements without privilege of any kind.
22. The false Statements are defamatory. The Statements accuse and impute to Dr. Bowden unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment for profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such office or employment, including violation of Dr. Bowden’s professional duties as a licensed physician, lapse in judgment, fraud and misinformation, deception, lack of ethics, lack of integrity and lack of veracity. The Statements also prejudice Dr. Bowden in her profession as a licensed medical doctor.
23. By publishing the Statements on social media and to the Houston Chronicle, Methodist and Boom knew or should have known that the statements would be republished over and over by third-parties to Dr. Bowden’s detriment. Republication by Methodist and Boom’s followers, mainstream media, and users of Twitter was the natural and probable consequence of Methodist and Boom’s actions and was actually and/or presumptively authorized by Methodist and Boom. In addition to their original publications, Methodist and Boom are liable for the millions of third-party republications of the false and defamatory statements under the republication rule.
24. Methodist and Boom’s false and defamatory Statements harmed Dr. Bowden and her reputation, causing presumed damages and actual damages. Methodist and Boom each lacked reasonable grounds for any belief in the truth of their statements and defamatory implication, and acted negligently and without reasonable care in failing to determine the true facts. Methodist and Boom’s actions and Statements violated standards in the Houston community for addressing a physician’s use of off-label, therapeutic treatments for COVID, and violated Methodist’s own bylaws.
25. Methodist and Boom published the false and defamatory Statements with actual knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false. Methodist and Boom acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth for the following reasons:
a. Methodist and Boom fabricated the Statements about Dr. Bowden with knowledge that the events never occurred. Although Methodist and Boom made it appear as if they had direct knowledge of facts, they did not have one shred of evidence to support the statements. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968) (“The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant [or] is the product of his imagination”); Miller v. Watkins, 2021 WL 924843, at * 18 (Tex App. 2021) (“If Miller indeed fabricated her allegations, then she by definition entertained serious doubts about them and had a high degree of awareness of the statements’ falsity”).
b. Methodist and Boom misrepresented that Dr. Bowden made disparaging claims about Methodist either in writing or verbally. Based upon emails in their possession, Methodist and Boom knew their Statements were false.
c. Prior to publication, Methodist and Boom knew from the hospital’s own data collected from its patients and from their review of scientific studies and reports about Ivermectin and other off-label medications and the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, including VAERS data, that Dr. Bowden’s statements were true and were supported by an abundance of reliable medical evidence, including expert opinions from other renowned medical professionals. Methodist and Boom knew that Dr. Bowden’s use of Ivermectin to treat patients with COVID had not harmed a single patient, and that there was no public record of any patient complaints. Dr. Bowden was collaborating with 2 ENTs at Methodist to publish data related to all the COVID patients Dr. Bowden was testing, so for Methodist and Boom to say that Dr. Bowden was “dangerous” was clearly reckless disregard for the truth. Methodist and Boom published the Statements in spite of their actual knowledge of the truth, and in order to disparage and discredit Dr. Bowden’s professional reputation.
d. Methodist and Boom harbored an institutional entrenchment, hostility, hatred, extreme and unrelenting bias, spite and ill-will towards Dr. Bowden’s treatment modalities and a blind allegiance to the “party line” concerning treatment of COVID. This bias and prejudice motivated Methodist and Boom to publish the intentionally false statements about Dr. Bowden. Methodist and Boom intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehoods. Don King Productions, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 40 So.3d 40, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[a]n intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood.”) (citing Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 73 (1964)); Cochran v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 175 Ind.App. 548, 372 N.E.2d 1211, 1221 (1978) (evidence of ill will creates jury question on actual malice where “[t]here are no facts or statements of record which even remotely support” the defamatory implication at issue); see Duffy v. Leading Edge Products, Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 315 fn. 19 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[E]vidence of ill will can often bolster an inference of actual malice.”).
e. Methodist and Boom intentionally abandoned all standards in the medical community, ethics, morality and integrity in publishing and republishing the false Statements. They violated Methodist’s bylaws. They did not seek the truth or report it. They betrayed the truth for the sake of their desire to discredit Dr. Bowden. Rather than minimize harm, Methodist and Boom set out to inflict maximum pain and suffering on Dr. Bowden in order to harm her reputation. Methodist and Boom published the Statements in the broadest manner possible, to the media, Internet and social media audiences, for the sole purpose of injuring Dr. Bowden’s reputation. They refuse to be accountable; refuse to acknowledge their mistakes; and, of course, refuse to apologize. As a sure sign of their actual malice, Methodist and Boom did not even bother to contact Dr. Bowden for comment prior to publication. Project Veritas v. New York Times, Case 63921/2020 (Westchester County Mar. 18, 2021) (Opinion & Order, p. 13) (one of the reasons the New York Times was guilty of actual malice was that it intentionally declined to seek comment from the plaintiff prior to publication, which “blatantly violated NYT’s own published policies and ethical guidelines”.).
f. Methodist and Boom purposefully avoided the truth. After being notified that the Statements were false and defamatory, Methodist and Boom brazenly republished the Statements about Dr. Bowden. Nunes v. Lizza, 12 F. 4th 890, 901 (8th Cir. 2021) (“‘Republication of a statement after the defendant has been notified that the plaintiff contends that it is false and defamatory may be treated as evidence of reckless disregard.’ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A cmt. d (Am. L. Inst. 1977). Lizza tweeted the article in November 2019 after Nunes filed this lawsuit and denied the article’s implication. The pleaded facts are suggestive enough to render it plausible that Lizza, at that point, engaged in ‘the purposeful avoidance of the truth.’”).
26. As a direct result of Methodist and Boom’s defamation, Dr. Bowden suffered presumed damages, actual damages and special damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income, impaired future earnings and career damage, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering and anguish (past and future), injury to her reputation (past and future), costs and other out-of-pocket expenses, in the amount of $25,000,000 or such greater sum as is determined by the Jury.
B. Defamation By Implication
27. Dr. Bowden restates paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein by reference.
28. In their Statements, Methodist and Boom juxtaposed a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them and conveyed the Statements in such a way as to create a false impression that Dr. Bowden was dangerous, incompetent, and unfit to be a medical doctor. Methodist and Boom stated or implied that Dr. Bowden was suspended and investigated because she was spreading medical misinformation. She was not. Boom’s Statement that “[a]s a physician” he was personally offended by Dr. Bowden’s “behavior” implied that Dr. Bowden had violated medical standards of care in her treatment of COVID patients. Boom implied that he knew facts about Dr. Bowden’s “behavior” that no one else knew. He did not. Methodist and Boom implied that there was a correlation between Methodist treatment of COVID patients and Dr. Bowden’s treatment, and that Methodist’s treatment of “more than 25,000 COVID-19 inpatients” demonstrated that Dr. Bowden was spreading “dangerous misinformation”. It did not. Methodist and Boom omitted material facts, such as Methodist’s different treatment plans and patient data, including complaints and complications – to make it appear as if Dr. Bowden’s was spreading “dangerous misinformation” COVID and that her treatment was not “based in science”, and was contrary to Methodist’s “values”.
29. Methodist and Boom’s Statements constitute defamation by implication.
30. The defamatory gist of Methodist and Boom’s statements harmed Dr. Bowden and her reputation, causing presumed damages, actual damages and special damages, including loss of income and career damage and earnings impairment. The clickbait words chosen by Methodist and Boom and the manner in which the Statements were published demonstrate that Methodist and Boom intended or endorsed the defamatory implication of or concerning Dr. Bowden.
31. As a direct result of Methodist and Boom’s defamation by implication, Dr. Bowden suffered presumed damages, actual damages and special damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income, impaired future earnings and career damage, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering and anguish (past and future), injury to her reputation (past and future), costs and other out-of-pocket expenses, in the amount of $25,000,000 or such greater sum as is determined by the Jury.
Dr. Bowden alleges the foregoing based upon personal knowledge, public statements of others, and records in her possession. Dr. Bowden believes that substantial additional evidentiary support, which is in the exclusive possession of Methodist and Boom, their agents and other third-parties, will exist for the allegations and claims set forth above after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Dr. Bowden reserves her right to amend this Complaint upon discovery of additional instances of Methodist and Boom’s wrongdoing.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Dr. Bowden respectfully requests the Court to enter Judgment against Methodist and Boom, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Jury;
C. Prejudgment interest on the principal sum awarded by the Jury at the maximum rate allowed by law;
D. Postjudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
E. Costs and other recoverable amounts as allowed by law;
F. Such other relief as is just and proper.
TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED
DATED: July 14, 2022
Signature of Counsel on Next Page
DR. MARY TALLEY BOWDEN
By: /s/ Madhu S. Sekharan
Madhu S. Sekharan, Esquire
Texas Bar No. 24072332
16614 Radiant Lilac Trail
Cypress, TX 77433-6365
Mobile: 832-920-1515
Office: 281-304-6369
Steven S. Biss (VSB # 32972)
300 West Main Street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Telephone: (804) 501-8272
Facsimile: (202) 318-4098
Email: stevenbiss@earthlink.net
(Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice To be Filed)
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Thus is awesome! So sorry you had to go through this as well as all the people who were not able to get appropriate life saving treatments. Give EM hell!
I love that you're including Boom personally. When these execs are personally liable for their misdeeds this BS will stop.