Libel question: Is trust different from reputation? Condensed version

[spike1951]

What is the name of your state? Florida

Bottom line. I am in a libel suit as Plaintiff. Assume all else is proven as you would expect or need in a Libel trial, false letter, specific monetary damages, etc.

The doctor’s replied to the libel letter send to her, that caused the damages, by sending me a letter stating, this does not show mistrust on my part but given the allegations made, it is necessary to put to rest any question of drug misuse by me the plaintiff.

She knew the letter alleged drug misuse by me!

What difference does it make that she may have trusted me?

It’s not about trust, it’s about reputation.

Now, the doctor could no longer say to a drug agency audit, “there has never been a problem with this person”.

Hurt reputation, therefore libel, right????

 

[stephenk]

"Now, the doctor could no longer say to a drug agency audit, “there has never been a problem with this person”.

do you know this for a fact or are you assuming this is what the doctor will say?

In one of your very early posts you said the doctor told you she still trusted you but was just making sure everything was being done correctly.

 

[spike1951]

That is my point

to answer your question, yes, my wife and I both know it for a fact, the doctor told us that was the reason she was ordering these and would not "change her mind".

If the doctor had to have documentation for 8 months showing that I was not misusing the "narcotics", does it not logically follow "my reputation" was hurt.

Remember before the allegations, for 16 months, the doctor had never asked for daily nursing visits or required a single page of documentation.

So what she said she trusts me, the actions, (8 months) of records we have in hand, show she needed proof to show any drug audit, she as much said that. Other's would not feel our reputation was solid.