Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review

  1. #21
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Maybe you should.

    Lobbyists are like lawyers - everybody hates them, until they need one.
    Never needed either.

    I don't hate all lawyers, just those that I think are sleezy (basically in it for the money/fame/etc. rather than seeing justice done for the person). I guess my feelings would be the same about lobbyist. As long as they are doing it fairly and for a good cause, they would probably get my ok. I don't think they should be paid to get government to change a law though.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #22
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review

    People should call this dentist and see if they are still suing their patients.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #23
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review

    A justiciable and actual controversy exists before this Court with respect to whether
    the Agreement’s promise not to publish criticism of defendants and the purported assignment of
    copyright are void for lack of consideration under New York common law.

    The only purported consideration supporting the promise and the assignment is
    defendants’ promise not to avail themselves of “loopholes” in HIPAA that defendants claim would
    allow them to disseminate patient information to be used by third party marketers. HIPAA,
    however, already forbids defendants from disseminating patient information for any marketing
    purpose. 42 C.F.R. 164.501, 164.508(a)(3); HITECH Act, 13405(d), 42 U.S.C. 17935(d);
    see also U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Private Practice Ceases Conditioning of
    Compliance with the Privacy Rule, Health Information Privacy, Health Information Privacy
    hipaa/enforcement/examples/allcases.html#case29 (visited Nov. 19, 2011) (“A covered entity’s
    obligation to comply with all requirements of the Privacy Rule cannot be conditioned on the
    patient’s silence.”). The purported “loopholes” do not exist. The marketing activities in which
    defendants promised not to engage would themselves be a violation of HIPAA. Moreover,
    because defendants have a pre-existing obligation under HIPAA not to disseminate patient
    information for any marketing purpose, defendants’ promise to perform their statutory obligation
    was entirely valueless and did not constitute valid consideration. According to the United States
    Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, “A patient’s rights under the
    Privacy Rule are not contingent on the patient’s agreement with a covered entity.”
    HIPAA Enforcement examples/allcases.html#case29.
    48. Because, among other reasons, an agreement to foreswear illegal activity cannot, as
    a matter of law, be valid consideration, plaintiff seeks a declaration, on behalf of himself and the
    Class, that the Agreement’s promise not to publish criticism of defendants and the assignment are
    null and void for lack of consideration.


    A justiciable and actual controversy exists before this Court with respect to whether
    the Agreement, including the purported assignment of copyright, is void for unconscionability
    under New York common law.
    51. Defendants condition the provision of dental services upon execution of the
    Agreement, enjoy a superior bargaining position vis--vis plaintiff and the Class members, possess
    a more sophisticated legal understanding than plaintiff and the Class members, and employ false
    and deceptive language in the Agreement that misrepresents their clear obligation under HIPAA to
    not disclose patient information by claiming the existence of “loopholes” permitting the
    dissemination of patient information under certain circumstances. Moreover, the Agreement
    purports to impose grossly unreasonable, unfair and outrageous terms on plaintiff and the Class—
    terms to which the average consumer, if accurately informed of his health information privacy
    rights, would never assent. Consequently, plaintiff seeks a declaration, on behalf of himself and all
    others similarly situated, that the Agreement, including the purported assignment contained in it, is
    null and void for unconscionability.


    A justiciable and actual controversy exists before this Court with respect to whether
    the Agreement violates Section 349(a) of the New York General Business Law.


    Defendants falsely claim, in connection with the promotion of their dental services,
    that HIPAA has “loopholes” permitting the dissemination of patient information under certain
    circumstances. That false claim is material, because it induces patients to execute the Agreement
    under false pretenses, depriving them of protected speech and copyright rights. Moreover, by
    forcing patients to agree to refrain from making negative public statements about defendants, and
    to agree to assign copyrights, which defendants intend to exercise for the sole purpose of removing
    from public discourse any comment that they do not like, defendants create a false public record
    about themselves that distorts their reputation and prevents would-be patients from making sound
    choices about whether to use defendants’ services. That false image is material, because it
    conceals reasons why patients might prefer to patronize other dentists. Plaintiff has been injured
    by these acts. Plaintiff seeks a declaration, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
    that the Agreement is a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 349(a) of the New York
    General Business Law.
    I may be wrong.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •