Charging OBGYN With Rape Without Evidence is Defamation

Post number 5327

See the video at  https://rumble.com/v794212-lies-on-yelp-costs-liar.html    and at https://youtu.be/9FaxVJpKcKk

In Anthony J. Gingo, JR., M.D. v. Jane Hanak, 2026-Ohio-1452, No. 115341, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (April 23, 2026) Dr. Anthony J. Gingo, Jr., a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, performed surgery on Jane Hanak in April 2017. More than two years later, Hanak initiated legal proceedings alleging negligent medical care by Dr. Gingo and another physician, Dr. Kimberly Kraus. After several rounds of litigation, including voluntary dismissal and refiling of complaints, the trial court ultimately dismissed Hanak’s claims, and the appellate court affirmed that dismissal.

 FACTS

In mid-2022, Hanak posted a highly negative review of Dr. Gingo on Yelp, making numerous serious allegations including sexual misconduct, insurance fraud, and lack of hospital privileges. Dr. Gingo’s wife discovered the review a few months later and informed him. Subsequently, Dr. Gingo filed a lawsuit against Hanak and her husband in January 2023, alleging defamation and related claims.

LAW

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo, awarding him $145,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The court also found Hanak to be a vexatious litigator. The legal issues centered on defamation, defamation per se, and the validity of Hanak’s statements, as well as whether the procedural history and evidence justified the findings and damages awarded.

Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any material fact remains; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.

DEFAMATION PER SE

Defamation is a false publication that injures a person’s reputation, exposes him or her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace; or affects him adversely in his [or her] trade or business. To establish a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a false statement of fact was made about the plaintiff, (2) the statement was defamatory, (3) the statement was published, (4) the plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication, and (5) the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement.

A plaintiff must prove falsity as an essential element of a defamation claim and, because falsity is an essential element, a true statement cannot provide the basis for such an action. In Ohio, truth is a complete defense to a claim for defamation. In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Gingo averred that the statements made by Hanak were false and that he had never raped, sexually assaulted, or acted in any inappropriate fashion to any person, including Hanak; never concealed any kind of criminal conduct, including hate crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against civil rights; never rendered medical care and treatment without proper licenses or privileges; never altered any patient’s consent records; did not alter Hanak’s body to “suit any claimed personal desires”; never committed insurance fraud; did not take graphic photographs of Hanak without her consent or for any improper purpose; and has not experimented on other women.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The appellate court conducted a thorough review of the facts and legal arguments. Hanak challenged the trial court’s decisions, including the summary judgment, the damages awarded, and the vexatious litigator finding. The court examined the procedural history, the content and impact of Hanak’s Yelp review, and the evidence supporting Dr. Gingo’s claims. The analysis focused on whether Hanak’s statements were actionable as defamation and if the trial court properly assessed damages and her status as a vexatious litigator.

The court found no merit in Hanak’s appeal, concluding that the trial court’s rulings were supported by the record and applicable law. The defamatory statements were determined to be false and damaging, justifying both compensatory and punitive awards. The vexatious litigator designation was affirmed based on Hanak’s repeated litigation behavior.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo, the damages awarded, and the finding that Hanak is a vexatious litigator. The appellate court found that the trial proceedings and outcomes were proper and supported by both the facts and the law.

The defamatory statements also supported the trial court’s award of $100,000 in punitive damages, because it is clear that Hanak’s statements were published with hatred, ill will, a spirit of revenge, or with disregard to Dr. Gingo’s rights and safety. Moreover, these awards were only given after a full hearing during which Hanak was given the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Gingo and his witnesses and to present her own testimony in her defense. Therefore, the Court of Appeals could not say that this is the exceptional case that warrants reversal.

ZALMA OPINION

It is often difficult for a male doctor to act as an OBGYN. When a patient is not satisfied with the treatment received they often sue for damages. Ms. Hanak sued her OBGYN and lost in the trial court. Still angry she posted defamatory comments charging her OBGYN with rape, insurance fraud and other wrongful conduct. He sued for defamation and Hanak was unable to establish the truth of her charges and was assessed compensatory and punitive damages. She appealed and the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the trial court.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.