Background
Dr. William Sullivan, an emergency physician, treated Allison Schiman at St. Margaret’s Hospital emergency room on January 23, 2022, for severe abdominal pain. After a full examination, Sullivan, with a nurse present and with Schiman’s consent, performed a rectal exam based on her medical history of colitis. Shortly after, Schiman accused Sullivan of performing an unnecessary and aggressive rectal exam. Police investigated but declined to file charges in March 2022.
On March 31, 2022, Schiman posted on the City of Peru Updates and Information Facebook page a detailed accusation that Sullivan had sexually assaulted her during the exam, claiming he had shoved his fingers aggressively into her rectum, twisted his hand violently, and torn her rectum. She alleged he had a medical malpractice degree and knew “exactly what he can get away with.” Rodney Perez, the Facebook page’s administrator, commented that he believed the post was true and featured it at the top of the page, increasing its visibility to thousands of users.
Sullivan filed suit alleging defamation per se, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Schiman, Perez, and their LLC. Following a four-day bench trial in June 2025, the trial court found the allegations were false. The nurse who was present testified that she observed no aggressive conduct, no tearing, no crying out, and no withdrawal of consent. The trial court found Sullivan proved defamation per se but awarded only $1 in nominal damages against each defendant, citing uncertainty about how to calculate damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded for recalculation of damages. The court held that awarding $1 in nominal damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence where a plaintiff has proved defamation per se and suffered documentable mental anguish. The court rejected the trial court’s apparent confusion about damage calculations in defamation cases and clarified Illinois law.
The court explained that presumed damages are available in per se defamation cases precisely because reputational and emotional harms resist precise economic measurement. Nominal damages—awarded when a legal wrong occurs but no meaningful loss results—are inappropriate when defamation per se is proved. The law presumes harm in per se cases; therefore, awarding only $1 contradicts that presumption. The court noted that while absolute certainty in damage calculations is not required, awards cannot be based on “mere speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, or whim.” Instead, evidence must “tend to show a basis for the computation of damages with a fair degree of probability.”
Applying these principles, the court found Sullivan’s harm was neither trivial nor speculative. He was publicly accused of committing violent sexual assault under the guise of medical examination, seen by thousands. He testified to humiliation, sleep loss, embarrassment, changes in temperament, and altered treatment of patients. His wife corroborated these effects. The court remanded for the trial judge to exercise proper discretion in awarding compensatory damages reflecting the nature, extent, duration, permanence of the injury and its effect on daily life and relationships. The court noted Sullivan had suggested a formula of $20 per viewer (15,000 viewers = $300,000) based on precedent but took no position on its reasonableness, preferring the trial judge make the determination on remand.
Key Takeaways
- Presumed damages are mandatory in per se defamation cases; nominal damages are inappropriate absent special circumstances explaining why the plaintiff suffered no actual harm despite the per se nature of the statement
- Intangible injuries like reputational harm, emotional distress, and mental anguish are legally compensable even when they resist precise calculation; absence of exact economic measurement does not render harm uncompensable
- Trial courts must consider factors including nature, extent, duration, permanence of injury; effect on plaintiff’s daily life, relationships, emotional well-being; breadth of publication; and plaintiff’s prominence and reputation when awarding presumed damages
- False accusations of violent sexual assault published to thousands constitute serious, non-trivial per se defamation requiring meaningful compensatory damages
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Illinois courts cannot circumvent presumed damages doctrine by awarding token nominal sums in per se defamation cases. It rejects the proposition that lack of a mathematical formula justifies minimal awards and instead directs trial courts to exercise reasoned discretion based on the severity and effects of the defamatory harm. For plaintiffs in defamation cases involving accusations of crime or professional misconduct, the decision establishes that documented mental anguish, reputational impact, and behavioral changes constitute substantial evidence supporting meaningful damages—particularly where publication reaches thousands of people.
The decision is also significant for practitioners because it addresses a gap in Illinois law: how to calculate presumed damages in per se defamation when special damages are not claimed. The appellate court’s framework invites consideration of publication scope (Perez’s 15,000-viewer estimate), severity of accusation, and plaintiff’s documented emotional and behavioral consequences, while declining to impose a rigid formula. On remand, the case may establish useful precedent for the appropriate range of damages in social-media defamation cases.