Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Sends Social Media Defamation Case Back to Trial Court to Award Compensatory Damages

By Julie Tappendorf on July 15, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Although this case does not involve local governments, it is an interesting case involving social media posts and a defamation lawsuit. Sullivan v. Schiman. 

A patient posted on a local “updates and information” Facebook page about a doctor she had seen in the emergency room. Her post named the doctor and claimed that he had sexually assaulted her in giving a rectal examination. That Facebook post was then made a “featured post” by the Facebook page’s administrator, which meant it was the first post on that Facebook page. When the doctor learned about the post, he filed a complaint against both the patient and the Facebook page’s administrator alleging defamation “per se” among other claims. The case went to trial, and testimony by a nurse who was present during the exam contradicted the claims made by the patient in her Facebook post. At the end of the trial, the judge found in favor of the doctor on his defamation claim against both defendants, and awarded him $1.00 in nominal damages from both the poster and the page administrator.

The doctor appealed on two grounds. First, the doctor claimed the trial court erred in awarding only $1.00 in damages. Second, the doctor argued that the trial court should have imposed sanctions against the page administrator and his attorney for providing false answers in discovery.

The Appellate Court agreed with the doctor on both issues. First, the Appellate Court ruled that nominal damages were not reasonable in this case where several thousand people saw the Facebook post accusing him of a violent sexual assault, which, among other things, would support an award of compensatory damages rather than only nominal damages. Defamation “per se” occurs when a false statement is so inherently harmful that the damage to a person’s reputation is obvious on its face, meaning the doctor did not need to prove actual monetary or special damages. The Appellate Court also found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying sanctions for the discovery violations. The Appellate Court  sent the case back to the trial court to enter an appropriate award of damages and to reevaluate the sanctions request. 

Municipal Minute is authored by Julie Tappendorf, a partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago, to provide timely legal updates on topics of interest to local governments.

     

Related Stories

  • Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam
  • Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 106: Legislative Update
  • Seventh Circuit Upholds Removal of Public Employee for Social Media Posts

 

Photo of Julie Tappendorf Julie Tappendorf

Julie Tappendorf is an equity partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago. She represents clients in local government, land use, social media, and litigation matters.

EmailJulie's Linkedin ProfileJulie's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment, Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    Municipal Minute
  • Organization:
    Ancel Glink, P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo