RSS
Doctor Sues Patients Over Bad Yelp Reviews
from the that's-not-going-to-help dept
We've seen all sorts of business owners get upset about Yelp, but it seems to be ratcheting up a notch. For example, take Denver chef, Scott Parker, who lashed out at Yelp reviewers in a recent interview (sent in by visual77). After being asked what he'd like to see less of, he stated:
Amateur instant online restaurant critics -- specifically those who write reviews for a website that rhymes with "kelp." Think about it: They review a McDonald's and then turn around and review Mizuna. I just imagine bored, jobless layabouts with not many friends who are convinced that they're going to have a bad time before they even step through the door of a joint. The kicker is, you can't respond to these inbreds and try to educate, or at least explain, why some things happen the way they happen. Have a little fun, for chrissakes. Loosen up when you go out, and let me be the stress ball in the kitchen busting my ass for twelve-plus hours trying to make you the best food I can. Fuck you!This, of course, resulted in a fair amount of Yelp backlash.
Now, I was going to use this as a story to highlight how bitching about your critics could seriously backfire, but before I could finish that post folks started sending over the even more extreme story of a doctor in Chicago suing three patients after they wrote negative reviews. Dr. Jay Pensler apparently felt that these comments were defamatory, though the article seems to suggest that the people who complained appear to have somewhat legitimate gripes. Pensler is a plastic surgeon, and one woman apparently posted a picture showing uneven breasts with nipples that point in different directions -- something I could see leading to a negative review.
Of course, this isn't really a first either. A few months back we posted about another plastic surgeon who sued her patients for bad reviews on Yelp. Either way, it's difficult to see how that's going to be good for business. Would you go to a doctor who sued online commenters? It seems like these people just aren't going to be willing to take much criticism if they do a bad job... Of course, the lawsuits have resulted in a number of people deleting their criticisms of Dr. Pensler, which is probably the point of his lawsuits. Hopefully a bit more attention on the lawsuits themselves will counteract this.
What's equally troubling, however, is that the court reviewing this case seems to be ignoring the basic First Amendment questions and denied requests to quash the subpoenas in question. It seems like the complaining patients have a pretty strong First Amendment claim to support their anonymity -- a claim that many other US courts have supported. It's a bit worrisome that this court seems to be ignoring that First Amendment right.
34 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Real Estate Firms Slipping 'Non-Disparagement' Clauses Into Rental Agreements To Stifle Online Criticism
- Tons Of Companies Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Uploading Phone Addressbooks
- Dentist Who 'Invoiced' Patient For Negative Reviews, Getting Slammed On Yelp
- Dentist Forced Patient To Sign Away Future Copyright On Any Online Review; Then Billed Him $100/Day For Negative Reviews
- Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Where do I sign up to be on that jury? I would make sure to bring lots of dollar bills.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Since when does the First Amendment trump the right of someone to earn a profit?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
When did Tara Reid come to Chicago?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yelp and free speach
of advertising. If we know of a product or service that
is above average we spread the word. Likewise if we are
unhappy about a product or service we are sure to tell the
family, friends and coworkers.
Isn't Yelp just a bigger and louder "word of mouth"?
When did word of mouth become illegal?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yelp and free speach
While the whole "don't sue a negative commenter" wasn't exactly expressed, "don't delete negative comments" was. We told them that taking the opportunity to publicly respond politely and professionally to the situation gives them the opportunity to turn that negative comment into positive advertising.
If you leave me a negative comment, and I reply "Mr. Customer, I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Please come by the office some time so we can discuss how to make this right for you"... how good does that look? If you came across that kind of exchange you might very well think "wow, this customer is just a disgruntled blaster and the owner is trying to fix it".
However, if you delete comments or SUE them, you look like someone with something to hide.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yelp and free speach
When did word of mouth become illegal?'
It's not illegal, but now it's both widespread and persistent - which means that's it's not "word of mouth" any more, it's publishing. Traditional "word of mouth" is ephemeral - it fades, and it's localized. If someone screwed up badly, they could move, and leave it behind them. With Yelp, and other services, and the self-publishing options available to everyone, it's harder for someone to leave their mistakes and incompetence behind.
This can be very bad for them - but good for the rest of us.
Of course, the surgeon can easily avoid this by doing good work. And setting expectations low enough that he can exceed them. And by charging reasonable rates. You know - basic customer service best practices. :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yelp and free speach
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
People are only allowed to believe what the commercials tell you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Okay, which directions?
Any good art instruction on basic human proportions will tell you that somewhere in the range of a 60-90 degree angle is natural and preferable. Now if one pointed up and the other down, well, yeah that'd be less than quality work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Okay, which directions?
Otherwise, how do I know if they're listening?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Comeback
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Okay, which directions?
'Eyes front' is really only possible when mechanical means are employed (hands, brassiere, perhaps suspenders?), so yes, motorboating would make that happen, but, unless it's a truly natural development, which would be a bit uncommon, they shall likely point a bit east and west when left to their own devices, even when surgically altered.
North and south...that might be a problem if you paid for bigger and better (or smaller and less problem causing).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Okay, which directions?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
If a "doctor" effs you up, eff them up back.
There is slander/defamation, but it's ONLY illegal if it is not true. If you are truly effed up and can prove it, no one stands a chance against you.
If there's one thing that lawsuits can do, even if your opponent files completely in the wrong is--they can be used to make a person (with a legitimate gripe or not) to become frightened, intimidated, eventually back down resulting in their opponent winning by default and therefore setting a precedence for all other cases in the future which benefits the party that wrongly filed the lawsuit. This has worked very well with the extortion schemes devised by legal offices "acting" on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA. These doctors are hoping to silence their critics and even those who they have effed up.
If you have a gripe and if you decide to post comments publicly; STATE only the facts and make sure that you can provide PROOF to back up your claims. If you get a legal threat, DO NOT back down. Post your proof publicly and also post publicly that you intend to keep everything completely public. Let them sue you and take you to court because the courts will side with you if you have proof. Get the media involved, post a Facebook dedicated-information page, post YouTube videos and create as much publicity as you can. When you win, sue back for all the money that you can get.
Destroy someone that has ruined you, and most definitely destroy the same person that is trying to destroy you.
FIGHT BACK.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Libel & free speech
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yelp and free speach
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Okay, which directions?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If she goes ahead and shows up at a trial and her boobs are pointing in different directions, well, that seems to be a pretty big problem for the doc.
As long as you don't do something stupid in your review, why should anyone fear a lawsuit? Isn't there some kind of popular saying that takes care of people that try to intimidate you for exercising your rights? I think it goes something like "So sue me."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I Am Confused by Techdirt
So now here are plaintiffs handling it properly, suing the people who actually made the post, and this blog still complains about it!
The First Amendment does not trump libel and defamation laws. If the post on Yelp is libelous then the person who made the post can be sued for damages.
Whether the lawsuit is good or bad for business, the person who posted the review better be able to back up the assertions made in their review or else they have in fact broken the law and the doctor has every right to sue.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Am Confused by Techdirt
Indeed. But that does not mean that we ignore First Amendment rights.
So now here are plaintiffs handling it properly, suing the people who actually made the post, and this blog still complains about it!
So you think that because they sued the person we should ignore the chilling nature of suing critics?
The First Amendment does not trump libel and defamation laws. If the post on Yelp is libelous then the person who made the post can be sued for damages.
Indeed. But are these comments libelous? That's not clear (the photos certainly suggest otherwise). The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, and there are indications that this is an attempt to stifle truthful or opinionated speech through legal threats. You don't see that as a problem?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting Juxtaposition
As I understand it, libel has to have provable damages. If this doctor screwed up the surgery she should be glad she's only posting pictures and not suing HER for malpractice. I'd point out people have sued and won, with less grounds than botched surgery. (Thinking coffee here)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I Am Confused by Techdirt
(Unlikely in this case, considering the number of complaints and the fact that most went down.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Am Confused by Techdirt
But it has to be very frustrating for a business when reviews are posted that are not true. The business has no recourse, and the poster hides behind anonymity to elude the consequences of committing the bad act.
This blog refers to anonymous posters as "Anonymous Coward" for a reason.
These anonymous posts can cause very real economic damage to the business. How do you fix that?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I Am Confused by Techdirt
The business can respond. That seems like recourse. And if the business has lots of legitimate happy customers, word of mouth will spread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Court/Case Number?
Do you have any information on where this case has been filed, or what the case number is (or both)? I'm interested in finding out whether Yelp moved to quash Pensler's subpoena.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
doctor sues detractor
The WWII Vet vs. The Doctor: A Case of Internet Defamation
There must be something in the air, because as of late, defamation lawsuits are popping up from sea to shining sea-online and off. Former Major League superstar, Roger Clemens, is embroiled in an upcoming defamation lawsuit, while online travel heavyweight, TripAdvisor.com, is staring down the barrel of a group action being pursued by hundreds of hotel vendors; and in Duluth, Minnesota, a doctor is suing his patient's son for-yep, you guessed it-spreading lies online.
In April of last year, World War II Veteran, Kenneth Laurion, was treated for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke's Hospital by Dr. David McKee, a neurologist. During Mr. Laurion's time in the hospital, his family alleged that Dr. McKee's behavior was unacceptable. The Laurions insist that Dr. McKee's bedside manner was beyond reproach. The good doc, they claimed, lacked common sensitivity-in both actions and comments-towards patient Kenneth and the rest of the Laurion clan. Like many would today, Dennis Laurion, Kenneth's son, took to the Internet and made his displeasure with McKee known.
In June, Dr. McKee filed a defamation suit against Dennis. McKee's attorney, Marshall Tanick, called Laurion's alleged defamatory remarks ,"weapons of mass destruction" (oh yes, he went there). Tanick continued by arguing, "The totality of statements made on these websites would be injurious to the reputation and standing of a doctor in the eyes of others who might see it, including patients or prospective patients, colleagues, peers, referral sources, and others."
On February 8th, accompanied by his wife and father, Dennis Laurion found himself in the Sixth Judicial District Court. He explained how when he went to the Intensive care unit to check on his father, he overheard Dr. McKee quip, "I had to find out whether you had been transferred or died."
In a deposition, McKee acknowledged that he had made the statement, but insists it was in good humor and intended to alleviate tension.
Dr. McKee is seeking excess of $50,000. The Laurions and their lawyer, John Kelly, are claiming that any statements made about the doctor were true, thereby rendering Dennis Laurion immune from any liability. In the eyes of Kelly, Laurion's comments were opinions that cannot be demonstrated to be false in court.
Eric Hylden, the presiding judge, announced that the suit was a "very interesting type of case." Later, Hylden implied that, Constitutionally, Dennis certainly has a right to an opinion but went on to question whether or not there is some limitation to what citizens can say in an online public forum.
See more: http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/Internet-Law-and-Intellectual-Property-Articles/The-WWII-Vet-vs-The-Doc tor-A-Case-of-Internet-Defamation.shtml
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Doctors and plumbers sue over online ratings
"Judge tosses Duluth doctor's suit against patient's family"
By Mark Stodghill, April 28, 2011
A judge threw out a lawsuit today filed by a Duluth physician who said he was defamed by a man who publicly criticized his bedside manner.
Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, alleged that Dennis Laurion of Duluth defamed him and interfered with his business by making false statements to the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke’s hospital, among others.
Laurion was critical of the treatment his father, Kenneth, received from McKee after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke and spending four days at St. Luke’s hospital from April 17-21 last year. Kenneth Laurion recovered from his condition.
Dennis Laurion claimed that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he was immune from any liability to the plaintiff.
In his 18-page order dismissing the suit, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden wrote that looking at Laurion’s “statements as a whole, the court does not find defamatory meaning, but rather a sometimes emotional discussion of the issues.”
Hylden addressed the fact that Laurion posted some of his criticisms of McKee on websites. “In modern society, there needs to be some give and take, some ability for parties to air their differences,” the judge wrote. “Today, those disagreements may take place on various Internet sources. Because the medium has changed, however, does not make statements of this sort any more or less defamatory.”
Hylden concluded his order by stating that there wasn’t enough objective information provided to justify asking a jury to decide the matter.
Laurion was relieved by the court’s ruling.
“My parents, who are now 86, my wife and I have found this process very stressful for the past year, since my father’s stroke. There was never just one defendant,” he said. “We’re grateful that Judge Hylden found no need for a trial.”
In his suit, McKee alleged that Laurion made false statements including that McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room; that McKee told the Laurion family that he had to “spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died;” that McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days; that McKee told the patient that he didn’t need therapy; that McKee said it didn’t matter that the patient’s gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed; that McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time; and that McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.
According to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice website, McKee has had no disciplinary actions brought against him.
“I’m very disappointed by this court’s decision because as far as I can see the only avenue that I can see that I had to respond to this overwhelming attack was through the courts, and for the time being it appears that avenue has been closed without me ever getting a chance to present my evidence,” McKee said.
McKee said he hadn’t had a chance to confer with Marshall Tanick, his Minneapolis attorney. He said he will do so before he decides whether to appeal the decision. Tanick told the News Tribune he had not yet seen the decision and couldn’t comment on it.
“Dennis Laurion is a liar and a bully and a coward,” McKee said.
The rest of the article is at http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/197679/publisher_ID/36/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I Am Confused by Techdirt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Okay, which directions?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment