Opinion ID: 2622669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Motions

Text: ¶107 Dr. Jensen met defendants' motions challenging the adequacy of his economic loss evidence related to the third broadcast by noting that Dr. Jensen testified at length regarding the patients who refused to see him, lost hospital privileges, and the cut in his hours which resulted in his need to leave the Art City Medical Clinic in search of work elsewhere, namely nursing homes, and [t]hese damages occurred after the November broadcast. He argued that as a result of the third broadcast, now he works in nursing homes billing Medicare and Medicaid, working longer hours, and being confronted with death everyday. However, the record does not support these assertions. Instead, the testimony cited by Dr. Jensen's counsel fails to link these economic events to the third broadcast. Moreover in his response to defendants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Dr. Jensen argues that Media Defendants misstate that Dr. Jensen's entire damage theory was based on his removal from IHC physicians' panel. Yet nowhere in this motion does Dr. Jensen demonstrate any tie between the third broadcast and economic damages. ¶108 Dr. Jensen also contends that economic losses were limited to the third broadcast through the testimony of Mr. Stuart that because Dr. Jensen was forced into nursing home practice, he is currently making less money than he would have been making if he were still in private practice. Yet Dr. Jensen likened his move from private practice to nursing homes to his loss of IHC privileges after the first broadcast. It is true that Dr. Jensen left his position at the Art City Clinic after the third broadcast. However, he was not terminated from that position. Instead, when his hours were decreased at the clinicpossibly as a result of the third broadcast Dr. Jensen voluntarily left the clinic and sought work in the nursing home field.