• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
64,731
Reaction score
27,930
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was just shaking my head the entire time reading this.

Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review | ABC News - Yahoo!

I find it despicable that a professional would feel it necessary to silence their patients/customers from making bad reviews/comments about them with legal forms. It is just dirty.

"The controversy began in 2010, when Lee went into Makhnevich’s office for a scheduled dentist’s appointment. Bleary from pain, Lee claimed he was told he had to sign several papers, including a “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy,” before being treated. The form required Lee to agree not to publish any commentary or write anything disparaging about his experience with Makhnevich."

And if anyone can tell me, is a business being on Yelp voluntary, paid for by the business, or can be put there by anyone?

I ask because this dentist has a Yelp page (which is where the comments were made) and I don't understand why she would do that and feel that it was ok to only silence the bad reviewer(s).

Honestly, I hope the guy gets back all the money he paid for the procedure from this dentist, plus any attorney fees.
 
This is actually happening quite a lot. These kids of suits are usually dismissed, but the pre-trial motions and discovery can cost millions of dollars and years of work. The person filing the suit can usually spare the time, energy, and money, while the person being sued cannot. These have been called SLAPP suits recently, which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Quite a few states have enacted statutes in the last few years to allow early dismissal, so that no one suffers through a lengthy, meritless lawsuit. There's an effort right now to enact a federal one, too.

Some states have stronger or weaker Anti-SLAPP laws. New York's isn't particularly strong, and might not protect this Yelp reviewer.
 
Have you ever tried to look up the history of malpractice suits against doctors?

Apparently it's a matter of deepest national security.
 
This is actually happening quite a lot. These kids of suits are usually dismissed, but the pre-trial motions and discovery can cost millions of dollars and years of work. The person filing the suit can usually spare the time, energy, and money, while the person being sued cannot. These have been called SLAPP suits recently, which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Quite a few states have enacted statutes in the last few years to allow early dismissal, so that no one suffers through a lengthy, meritless lawsuit. There's an effort right now to enact a federal one, too.

Some states have stronger or weaker Anti-SLAPP laws. New York's isn't particularly strong, and might not protect this Yelp reviewer.

I believe he is being helped by some legal advocacy firm, Public Citizen (not sure what exactly they are). I would honestly just like to see it go all the way so maybe it will lead to changes and get justice for this guy.

Encouraging words by the distributors of those legal forms, but not enough if they are still selling them.
 
Last edited:
I find it despicable that a professional would feel it necessary to silence their patients/customers from making bad reviews/comments about them with legal forms. It is just dirty.

To me, it's a huge warning sign that I shouldn't be soliciting the services of such a professional in the first place.
 
I believe he is being helped by some legal advocacy firm, Public Citizen (not sure what exactly they are).

Public Citizen doesn't do legal advocacy, I don't think. They just lobby. Oh, wait, is lobbying bad?
 
The simple fact that this dentist participates with a critique company and then makes his patients sign a non-disclosure form says everything you need to know about him. He wants to prop up anything that makes him look good and hides everything that makes him look bad. You dont want this type of guy hacking away at your mouth looking for reasons to take your money.
 
The simple fact that this dentist participates with a critique company and then makes his patients sign a non-disclosure form says everything you need to know about him. He wants to prop up anything that makes him look good and hides everything that makes him look bad. You dont want this type of guy hacking away at your mouth looking for reasons to take your money.

What if your insurance company dictates that who they will pay for to be your dentist?
 
a BETTER way to get a positive review is to just do a good job, not screw your patients over, and be honest with them.

Wow - right? I know, like crazy **** there.
 
I don't think this publicity will be good for the dentist.
 
To me, it's a huge warning sign that I shouldn't be soliciting the services of such a professional in the first place.

I understand that sentiment, but if you're in pain and know that trying to get an appointment somewhere else will take weeks or longer and you don't know if they are going to want you to sign a similar form as well, it is likely that it won't even be an issue until it actually is one.

Really, it isn't just the form though. $4000+ for a dental procedure is a lot of money. I know my extensive cleaning cost about a quarter of that, and it was still a lot. Dental work is way too expensive and it is completely wrong of the dentist to do all that was done during this case (if it is as he claims, which I am inclined to believe just from the fact that the dentist isn't contesting it, just that it is now public).
 
Public Citizen doesn't do legal advocacy, I don't think. They just lobby. Oh, wait, is lobbying bad?

Thanks for that.

Don't really care for lobbyists. If they help the guy get his case out to the public though, it can still be good. Hopefully, someone helps him with any legal costs he incurs.
 
This may be telling of the direction this will go:

Vitals - Toothache lawsuit may stifle medical gag orders against online rants

Within hours, the complaint filed by the advocacy group Public Citizen had prompted the company that designed Makhnevich’s contract to advise dentists and doctors to stop trying to muzzle negative comments posted on online sites such as Yelp, RateMD.com and others.
“We retired the form,” said Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a neurosurgeon and founder of Medical Justice Services Inc., a North Carolina firm that claims to battle medical defamation for a fee. “We probably should have retired the agreement earlier, but today’s the day we did it.” He added that he’s telling his 3,500 members to stop using the contract in the future.​
 
This may be telling of the direction this will go:

Vitals - Toothache lawsuit may stifle medical gag orders against online rants

Within hours, the complaint filed by the advocacy group Public Citizen had prompted the company that designed Makhnevich’s contract to advise dentists and doctors to stop trying to muzzle negative comments posted on online sites such as Yelp, RateMD.com and others.
“We retired the form,” said Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a neurosurgeon and founder of Medical Justice Services Inc., a North Carolina firm that claims to battle medical defamation for a fee. “We probably should have retired the agreement earlier, but today’s the day we did it.” He added that he’s telling his 3,500 members to stop using the contract in the future.​

Thanks. I read that this firm has said they were advising doctors not to use it against patients for negative reviews, but not that they had retired the firm. Like the firm more now.
 
I was just shaking my head the entire time reading this.

Dentist Threatens to Sue Patient for Negative Yelp Review | ABC News - Yahoo!

I find it despicable that a professional would feel it necessary to silence their patients/customers from making bad reviews/comments about them with legal forms. It is just dirty.

"The controversy began in 2010, when Lee went into Makhnevich’s office for a scheduled dentist’s appointment. Bleary from pain, Lee claimed he was told he had to sign several papers, including a “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy,” before being treated. The form required Lee to agree not to publish any commentary or write anything disparaging about his experience with Makhnevich."

And if anyone can tell me, is a business being on Yelp voluntary, paid for by the business, or can be put there by anyone?

I ask because this dentist has a Yelp page (which is where the comments were made) and I don't understand why she would do that and feel that it was ok to only silence the bad reviewer(s).

Honestly, I hope the guy gets back all the money he paid for the procedure from this dentist, plus any attorney fees.
the patient signed an agreement NOT to do that which he did
the dentist seeks to enforce the terms of the contract
don't see that the patient has any basis for escaping such enforcement of the contract terms he violated
 
What if your insurance company dictates that who they will pay for to be your dentist?

Most insurance companies don't do that, though they do have PPOs. Even then, most PPOs have more than one dentist. Still, he could be the only one for a hundred miles if you live in a very rural area.
 
the patient signed an agreement NOT to do that which he did
the dentist seeks to enforce the terms of the contract
don't see that the patient has any basis for escaping such enforcement of the contract terms he violated

Except that the patient was under duress (pain) when he signed the agreement and did not understand the full implications of what they were signing.

Even the distributor of the forms feels that dentists/doctors are not using these forms for their intended purpose by suing people for speaking against their practices on social sites.

And, the dentist would also have to go after patients who made positive comments about their business as well if they truly were interested in the letter of the law, and not just stifling criticism about their service.
 
the patient signed an agreement NOT to do that which he did
the dentist seeks to enforce the terms of the contract
don't see that the patient has any basis for escaping such enforcement of the contract terms he violated
If the terms of the contract involve things which either of the parties shouldn't be doing in the first place, then the contract won't hold.

here's the actual filing for reference

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Lee-v-Makhnevich-complaint.pdf
 
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.
 
People should call this dentist and see if they are still suing their patients.
 
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-à-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.
 
Back
Top Bottom