Jury sides with Mayo Clinic in prominent physician’s lawsuit over alleged silencing during COVID

A jury this week found no merit in a prominent physician’s lawsuit against Mayo Clinic that alleged he was stifled and prohibited from publicly criticizing the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

An Olmsted County District Court jury Thursday evening returned its verdict opposing all of Dr. Michael Joyner’s allegations against Mayo Clinic, ending a nine-day trial and more than two years of legal battles between Joyner and Mayo Clinic.

“This verdict underscores Mayo Clinic’s steadfast commitment to upholding our values and holding individuals accountable to the high standards that define our organization,” Mayo officials said in a statement.

Samantha Harris of Allen Harris Law, which represented Joyner during the trial, said in a statement that Joyner “remains deeply proud to have stood up for what he believes is right, including open scientific dialogue and academic freedom. He remains committed to his patients, his research and his colleagues.”

Joyner sued in late 2023, alleging Mayo officials told him to limit his comments to “prescribed messaging” in public interviews during the height of the pandemic in 2020 over worries the federal government would cut ongoing health and research funding.

Joyner also argued Mayo retaliated against him by suspending him without pay for one week, claiming his punishment was over his public comments.

He sought an unspecified amount of money and a court order requiring Mayo to comply with its policies favoring academic freedom and opposing retaliation.

A physician committee upheld the suspension after Joyner appealed it, and Mayo officials said an outside attorney concluded that it wasn’t retaliation for Joyner’s comments.

Joyner is one of Mayo’s most visible doctors. He has given numerous interviews with media outlets around the world and has coauthored as many as 500 medical studies.

He also has worked on a number of research projects for Mayo, one of which was behind his request for millions of dollars in payment in 2020. Joyner claimed he hadn’t been compensated for work he had done on plasma as a potential COVID treatment. Mayo officials said the request was made beforehand for future work and was given as an ultimatum or else he would stop working on COVID-related research.

Joyner pivoted his human performance lab at the outset of the pandemic to study whether the plasma from blood donors who previously had COVID-19 could treat others who contracted the infectious disease. His early research prompted a federal order to authorize plasma’s use on an emergency basis, but the approach was largely supplanted by 2022 with alternatives such as new antiviral pills.

Joyner in a January 2023 CNN story accused the National Institutes of Health of “bureaucratic rope-a-dope” because of its halfhearted approval of plasma use in COVID cases. The NIH’s “wet blanket” guidance for plasma undercut its use and potential during the pandemic, he said.