Sullivan v. Schiman, 2026 IL App (3d) 250543 (filed July 7, 2026)
What is a reputation worth?
According to the Third District Appellate Court, when a
court finds you were defamed and actually harmed, the answer cannot be one dollar.
The Facts
Dr. William Sullivan, an emergency physician, performed a consented-to, chaperoned
rectal exam on a patient complaining of severe abdominal pain. The patient later
accused him of sexual assault. Police investigated; the State’s Attorney declined to file
charges. The patient then posted a graphic accusation on a community Facebook page,
warning residents that Dr. Sullivan had sexually assaulted her and urging people to stay
away from him and the hospital. The page’s administrator commented that he believed
the post, compared Sullivan to a local doctor who had actually been charged with a sex
crime, and pinned the post to the top of the page—where, by his own estimate, it
reached over 15,000 people.
Sullivan sued for defamation. After a four-day bench trial, the circuit court found the
assault never happened and that both the patient and the page administrator were liable
for defamation per se—the category of defamation so obviously harmful (here, false
accusations of a crime) that the law presumes damages. The court also found Sullivan
suffered real mental anguish: sleeplessness, humiliation, changes in temperament,
changes in how he practiced medicine.
Then it awarded him one dollar from each defendant.
The Ruling
The appellate court vacated the award. Its reasoning is a useful primer on how Illinois
law treats intangible harm.
Nominal damages, the court explained, exist for cases where a legal wrong occurred but
no meaningful loss followed. They are not a substitute for compensatory
damages—which are presumed in defamation per se cases. Where the trial court itself
found actual mental anguish flowing from a public accusation of violent sexual assault
seen by thousands, a one-dollar award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The court acknowledged that reputational and emotional injuries resist precise
calculation—valuing them “more resembles art than arithmetic.” But difficulty of
measurement is not an excuse. In the panel’s words: “The law does not provide a
calculator for per se reputational injury, but neither does it permit the court to throw up
its hands and award a dollar.” Courts should weigh factors such as the nature, extent,
and duration of the injury, the breadth of publication, the severity of the accusation, and
the plaintiff’s mental suffering.
The court also reversed the denial of discovery sanctions. The page administrator had
denied five of six requests to admit—including that he made the post a “featured
post”—only to concede several of those facts at his deposition. The trial court refused
sanctions because they weren’t “appropriate at this stage of the game.” That, the
appellate court held, is not a criterion found anywhere in Rule 219(b), and the failure to
apply the rule’s actual criteria was an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
For anyone who posts—or shares—online. The defamation liability here didn’t
stop with the original poster. The page administrator who amplified the accusation,
vouched for it, and pinned it was independently liable. Sharing and promoting someone
else’s defamatory post carries real legal risk. Social media presents the opportunity for
the word of any person to be heard by an incomputable amount of people. What could
have been a post viewed by only a few people resulted in Schiman being found liable for
defamation per se, and could have resulted in the end of Sullivan’s medical practice and
livelihood.
For defamation plaintiffs and their counsel. This decision is strong authority that
a defamation per se finding plus evidence of actual anguish requires a meaningful
compensatory award. Corroborating testimony matters: Sullivan’s wife’s testimony
about his sleeplessness and changed demeanor featured prominently, even though he
never sought counseling or treatment. Additionally, the 15,000 calculation for the
amount of people that viewed the post does not represent the true reach of social media.
What social media views do not show. is the amount of people who heard about the
accusations from their friends, family, or co-workers who saw the post and showed them
or told them about it. People well outside the area where Sullivan lives could have seen
the post and may never know that he was later found not guilty. Thus, counsel must
urge the courts and juries reviewing similar cases to take a second and truly try to
comprehend how dangerous false accusations on social media can be, and to calculate
and award damages accordingly.
For litigators generally. Answer requests to admit carefully. Denials that later prove
false at deposition can support fee-shifting sanctions, and trial courts must evaluate
sanctions motions under the actual criteria of Rules 219(b) and 137—not general
impressions about timing.
The case now returns to the trial court to set a real damage award and to reconsider
sanctions under the proper standards.
This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have
questions about defamation or protecting your reputation online, contact our office.