Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
On 8/31, PWInsider.com reported on where things stood with the lawsuit WWE Doctor Chris Amann had brought against former WWE champion CM Punk and Colt Cabana over comments made by Punk over the course of a November 2014 "Art of Wrestling" podcast hosted by Cabana, one of Punk's best friends. If you want to refresh yourself with that report, you can click here if you are reading the free site or click here if you are an Elite subscriber. Since that report, here are where things stand with the lawsuit.
As we noted, Punk and Cabana had filed motions to have the lawsuit dismissed but were turned down by the Presiding Judge. In speaking to a lawyer not involved with the case, they believed that the motions were turned down because some of the questions raised would have to be decided by a jury and that if there's even a chance that Amann's allegations can be proven correct, it would have to move forward.
On 8/24, attorneys for Punk and Cabana officially filed responses and defenses to the allegations made against them by Amann. In the response, Phil "CM Punk" Brooks made it clear he felt the lawsuit was filed as part of a collaboration with WWE in revenge against him for the podcast, where Punk spoke out against the company several months after the two sides came to a settlement in regard to his departure, the rights to the CM Punk name, Punk's appearance in the WWE 2K videogame and the remainder of Punk-related merchandise that WWE and their licensees had produced.
The filing reads, "Brooks is informed and believes that the Plaintiff collaborated, coordinated and conspired with the WWE in bad faith to prepare, bring and pursue this lawsuit in retaliation against Brooks and ['Colt Cabana' Scott] Colton for the embarrassment that the Podcast caused the WWE through and as a result of Brooks' candid and truthful discussion of various of his experiences as a WWE wrestler, despite the fact that the Plaintiff knows full well that the statements about which he complains are true and/or substantially true. Further, Books is informed and believes that the Plaintiff cooperated with the WWE in the preparation and improper release of the alleged results of a supposed investigation concerning Brooks' confidential and private medical information on the day after the Plaintiff filed this Complaint, which purported to support certain allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and to dispute and contest certain statements made by Brooks in the course of the Podcast. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff cooperated and conspired with the WWE to prepare and coordinate the preparation of the supposed investigation report who's supposed results were released to the public and published widely very shortly after the Plaintiff filed his Complaint."
[Note: In response to this, WWE issued the following statement to PWInsider.com: "Phil Brooks’ latest claim that WWE directed Dr. Amann to file a lawsuit against Brooks is categorically false. Dr. Amann made the decision to file suit in order to protect his professional reputation. WWE conducted its own investigation into this matter and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Dr. Amann, and thus continues to support Dr. Amann and the staff that runs our world-class medical program."]
Punk's filing also claimed that Amann's claims against him were "barred and precluded because the Plaintiff has engaged in misconduct and acted in bad faith with respect" to Punk personally. Punk then alleged that in his role as "purported physician for WWE", Amann had "repeatedly placed the interests of the WWE over the medical interests of Brooks and other patients, and has prioritized the interests of the WWE over the health and safety of Brooks and other WE wrestlers. Furthermore, Plaintiff, during his tenure with the WWE, has engaged in unprofessional, incompetent and/or dishonest conduct in furtherance of the WWE's entertainment and/or business interests that compromised and tarnished his reputation, professionalism and/or integrity."
Punk also alleged that Amann "violated his duty of physician-patient confidentiality to Brooks" and had invaded Brooks' own rights to privacy by "improperly included and disclosing" confidential information about Brooks' health in the original filing of the lawsuit against Punk and Cabana. Punk also alleged that Amann received no "permission or waiver" from him before releasing "private, privileged and confidential information" about his conversations with Punk.
In regard to the allegations Punk allegedly made against Amann, the response was, "[Phil] Brooks admits that, in the course of the Podcast, he discussed various medical issues that he experienced during his wrestling career, among other subjects. Brooks specifically denies that he falsely impugned the integrity of the Plaintiff as a medical doctor. Brooks further states that the "Podcast speaks for itself and denies the characterizations of various statements" that were alleged by Amann to have been said about him.
In regard to Amann's claims that he was never requested by Punk to "treat and/or excise" a lump, that Punk never advised him of a lump in his back and that Amann did not prescribe antibiotics to Punk for "a lump in his back, broken ribs or a concussion", the response from Punk was that he denied all the allegations and "specifically denies that the alleged statements at issue were false."
In regard to the idea that the "Art of Wrestling" podcast was published "with the foreseeable expectation that they would be repeated by third persons, including through print and on-line media" due to Punk's celebrity, Punk responded, "Brooks denies that he published any statements. Brooks admits it was a possibility that the Podcast could be discussed by third parties, but denies that the extent to which the Podcast was reported was foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable, and further denies that it was foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable what specific content in the lengthy podcast would be reported. Brooks further states that the Podcast speaks for itself and denies the characterizations of various statements" made by Amann's filings.
Punk's response also noted that the "allegedly false and defamatory statements are constitutionally protected expressions of opinion and are therefore nonactionable under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
The filed response also claimed that Amann's allegations, "do not have a precise and readily understood factual meaning. Brooks' challenged statements may not be reasonably construed as statements of fact in the cont4st in which they were made and the overall context of the Podcast. For instance, such terms and phrases as "lazy," and "worthless piece of sh**," as used by Brooks, consist of loose, figurative, rhetorical and/or hyperbolic language constituting nonactionable opinion. Brooks' challenged statements may not be reasonably construed as statements or objectively verifiable fact in the context in which they were made and the overall context of the Podcast. As such, Brooks' challenged statements constitute nonactionable expressions of opinions."
The response also noted that some of the challenged statements allegedly made about Amann "lack a readily understood meaning, are broad in scope and can be attributed multiple meanings by different listeners." They gave an example of Punk stating he was prescribed a Z-Pack for a concussion and broken ribs, which "a more reasonable and accurate interpretation would be" that Punk suffered a concussion and broken ribs, but was not treated for those "maladies" in any manner. It also noted that "such statements constitute opinion due to imprecisions and subjective nature of the terms."
Punk's defense also noted that the challenged statements allegedly about Amann "are reasonably capable of being interpreted as referring to a person or persons other than the Plaintiff. None of the challenged statements refers to the Plaintiff." So, they are claiming on record that any of the references to "Doc" were not about Amann unless Punk specifically said his name, which (as noted in the previous coverage of the lawsuit) was not during the challenged portion of the podcast that Amann is now suing over./p>
Punk's filing also claimed, "Brooks did not act with any sort of malice or fault when he made the alleged statements challenged by the Complainant in the court of the Podcast" and noted that Amann would be considered a public figure who "has been willingly employed in a very public role as a doctor for or affiliated with WWE, a professional sports organization and entertainment conglomerate that is the subject of widespread public interest, attention, concern and controversy, including, but not limited to, with respect to the medical treatment, health and safety of the wrestlers whom the Plaintiff is charged with treating."
They also noted Amann "has voluntarily become a public figure in his own right by engaging in numerous actions and a course of conduct that were designed to call and had the effect of calling public attention to himself and elevating his profile and status in the public eye" including appearing on WWE TV, appearing on WWE Podcasts, having a public Twitter handle with thousands of followers that is used to "deliberately raise his public profile and persona, promote himself and his role within the WWE and publicize himself, the WWE, WWE wrestlers and other personnel and other subjects." They also noted that Amann has injected himself into the public eye by working with the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Soccer Women's national team and other sports entities.
The filing from Punk also claimed that Amann has "not alleged and cannot prove any actual or special damages, and Plaintiff has not suffered any damages as a result" of what was said about him on the "Art of Wrestling." The filing noted that Amann continues to work with WWE, who have also publicly defended him. The alleged statements against Amann "were not the actual, proximate or legal cause to any economic injury to Plaintiff, any actual or cognizable injury to Plaintiff's reputation, or any other concrete law."/p>
Punk's response also cited that due the "vagueness and uncertainty" of the criteria of presumed damages, the Complaint would violate Punk's right to "procedural and substantive due process."
A separate response was also filed on 8/24 by Scott Colton, professionally known within professional wrestling as Colt Cabana. Many of the responses to charges made by Amann in his lawsuit are similar to those filed by Punk.
In regard to allegations that he marketed and publicized the podcast, the response was "Colton admits that he publicized the Podcast in the same manner that he did for all of his podcasts and made it available for streaming and/or downloading."
In regard to his language on the podcast, "The challenged statements made by Colton of which Plaintiff complains are reasonable capable of innocent construction as hyperbolic, expressions of opinions, fair comment, and/or in other respects. Colton largely confines his own remarks to repeating Brooks' statements or interjecting colorful language. In numerous instances, moreover, Colton challenges Brooks' statements or disagrees with statements made by Brooks that the Complaint claims to be defamatory. Most or all of Colton's challenged remarks are reasonably capable of interpretation as reactions to or repeating of Brooks' statements without any intention to validate Brooks' perspectives or express Colton's own point of view."
The filing by Cabana also states that Brooks never made any statements to him that the statements about Amann were "false or misleading" and that Brooks had shown him the lump on his "extreme lower back", had shared with Colton "certain information related to medical issues" and that Brooks' statements were "also consistent with Colton's own observations and experiences as a professional wrestler, as well as various experiences that other wrestlers had described or communicated to him over the years." Colton "reasonably believed and understood that the statements by Brooks challenged by the Plaintiff's Complaint were true when Colton published the Podcast."
Colton's filing also cited a "Neutral Reporting Privilege" noting that Brooks is a "responsible and prominent individual" within the world of WWE, professional wrestling and fighting, that the Podcast was part of a series addressed to professional wrestling that "addresses issues of public concern and listeners concerning professional wrestling and the WWE." It was cited that the Podcast episode itself was "newsworthy, because, among other reasons, certain statements made therein related to the public controversies regarding the health and safety of wrestlers and other athletes, including topics related to the medical treatment and impact of concussions and other health-related problems", noting the issues are "matters of interest" to the public and "have been widely discussed and debated by the media at large."
There is a conference set for 10/9 for attorneys of both sides to discuss the case and where things stand with the court. Brooks and Colton have demanded a trial by jury.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
