A recent decision by the Eighth Appellate District Court in Cuyahoga County upheld a trial court’s ruling that awarded significant damages to a physician after false and damaging statements were posted about him online by a former patient. The ruling is notable for its discussion of defamation law, online speech, and the designation of an individual as a vexatious litigator.
The appeal was filed by Jane Hanak against Anthony J. Gingo, Jr., M.D., following a judgment from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Case No. CV-23-973797) on January 13, 2023. Hanak challenged both the summary judgment granted in favor of Dr. Gingo and the award of $145,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, as well as her designation as a vexatious litigator.
According to court documents, Dr. Gingo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who performed surgery on Hanak in April 2017. More than two years later, Hanak initiated legal proceedings alleging negligent medical care against Dr. Gingo and another physician; those complaints were ultimately dismissed or decided in favor of the defendants. In mid-2022, Hanak published a review on Yelp containing serious allegations against Dr. Gingo, including accusations that he was “a sexual predator,” “a rapist,” committed insurance fraud, lacked hospital privileges for certain procedures, altered consent forms without knowledge or approval, experimented on women without consent, and engaged in hate crimes.
Dr. Gingo’s wife discovered the review several months after it was posted and informed him about it. On January 13, 2023, Dr. Gingo filed suit against Jane Hanak and her husband Mark Hanak for defamation based on these public statements and sought to have them declared vexatious litigators.
Hanak responded with multiple counterclaims which were dismissed by the trial court. She also filed motions to compel discovery and for sanctions against Dr. Gingo; both motions were denied.
The trial court found that Hanak had admitted to making multiple false statements about Dr. Gingo which constituted defamation per se because they “import an indictable criminal offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment and tend to injure” his profession as an OB/GYN providing intimate healthcare to women.
At the damages hearing, Dr. Gingo testified that after learning about the review his patient load dropped by half and that he felt compelled to retire early due to stress caused by the allegations: “that’s why I’m quitting…I don’t feel the same interaction any longer…my reputation has been destroyed.” His wife Holly testified similarly about negative impacts on their practice’s business volume and personal life.
The trial court awarded $50,000 for damage to reputation, $50,000 for mental anguish, $45,000 for loss of society (totaling $145,000), plus $100,000 in punitive damages upon finding that Hanak acted with hatred or disregard for Dr. Gingo’s rights and safety. A separate hearing resulted in an award of $93,437.47 in attorney fees.
On appeal Hanak raised eight assignments of error including challenges to whether there was sufficient evidence her statements were false or damaging; whether summary judgment was appropriate; whether her statements related to matters of public concern; whether certain witnesses should have been allowed at hearings; whether damages were excessive; whether she should be declared a vexatious litigator; and how deposition evidence was handled.
The appellate panel reviewed each claim de novo where required but found no merit warranting reversal:
– The appellate court agreed with the lower court that Hanak’s statements met Ohio’s definition of defamation per se because they alleged criminal conduct directly injurious to professional reputation.
– The panel noted that truth is an absolute defense under Ohio law but found no admissible evidence supporting Hanak’s claims or rebutting Dr. Gingo’s sworn denials.
– The exclusion of certain witnesses’ testimony (including Irene Fox) was upheld because those individuals lacked personal knowledge relevant to damages or veracity of claims made in public forums.
– The amount awarded was supported by testimony regarding reputational harm and personal distress suffered by Dr. Gingo following publication of the review.
– The appellate judges confirmed that summary judgment procedure had been properly followed according to Ohio Civil Rules.
– Regarding vexatious litigator status under R.C. 2323.52(A)(3), it was noted that Hanak had already been declared such in another proceeding prior to this order; any challenge would need to be directed at that earlier case (Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-23-973505).
The opinion concludes: “Judgment affirmed.”
Attorneys listed include Brianna M. Prislipsky and Brian D. Sullivan from Reminger Co., L.P.A., representing appellee Anthony J. Gingo Jr., M.D.; Raymond V. Vasvari Jr., from Vasvari | Zimmerman representing appellant Jane Hanak; Judges Michael John Ryan (author), Emanuella D. Groves (presiding judge), and Timothy W. Clary concurred in the decision under Case No: 115341.
Source: 2026Ohio1452_Gingo_Jr_MD_v_Hanak_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
