Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints

Carl Bialik writes "'Several Web sites have sprung up that encourage patients to post anonymous reviews of doctors and dentists. Some frustrated patients have even created entire Web sites to criticize specific physicians. The Wall Street Journal Online is reporting that some doctors are, in turn, defending their reputation by suing the online critics."

Comments

Just the facts, maam

[BWJones]

Awww, they should toughen up. Spending time posting on Slashdot should help out with that as no interesting or informative post here goes without some sort of pain.

Seriously though, if the patients are reporting on their experience, then that is not slander. Just stick to the facts and they should be fine. However, when you start crossing the line into statements that cannot be substantiated, then that is dangerous water. It is of course important to have resources like Slashdot where comments past a certain date cannot be modified. They become a part of the historical record that documents both protection for and against issues of speech.

Re:Just the facts, maam

[Zeinfeld]

The main problem is that the sites had names like drsmithfraud.com not medicalreviews.com. If someone has a site with a name like that it is probably not a dis-interested review, it is more like publishing a hit piece on the subject.

On the other hand the doctors involved are interestingly similar. They are all promoting elective surgery for cosmetic or quality of life reasons, one at least is a heavily advertised brand that does frequent infomercials. These are not your usual doctors.

Folk who bring libel suits often have something to hide. Robert Maxwell successfully supressed criticism of his theft-in-progress of the Mirror group pension fund using libel writs. Only after he committed suicide did the massive fraud come out. Jeffry Archer got away with millions until he was found out and jailed for perjury. The US libel laws are not quite as idiotic but a successful defendant can't get costs of the plaintif and so the SLAPP potential of libel suits is much higher.

First Amendment versus Sanctioned Legal Monopoly?

[dada21]

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

What about the other way around?

[alan_dershowitz]

It wasn't that long ago that there was a big stink over a doctor-run web site that blacklisted malpractice plaintiffs so that doctors could deny them future coverage, regardless of who won the case. Google cached link I guess it's not so funny when someone does it to them.

Re:Why is this surprising?!

[Ingolfke]

Your point is taken, but libel is not and never was protected speech. The fact that the doctor sued under libel indicates that the claims were false or misrepresented. If the were in fact true, the doctor would gain nothing by bringing the case other than proving the claims were indeed true.

Buy insurance before you criticize anyone publicly

[bigtallmofo]

For an average of $300 per year, just about anyone can get Umbrella Liability Insurance. Such insurance shields you from many things including slander and libel claims.

That way, the evil corporation or incompetent doctor that wants to shut you up with a frivilous lawsuit will really be suing your multi-billion dollar insurance company. $1 Million worth of coverage is typically around $300 per year. Multi-million policies are frequently available for not much more.

Book Review

[CultFigure]

Can someone please explain to me how this is any different than someone posting a bad review for a book on, say Amazon.com? Or is it that Amazon does in fact receive subpeonas to remove those reviews that can be categorized as libel or slanderous and we, the public, don't hear about it?

Respond in kind?

[peacefinder]

It's bound to come up, so let me head this question off at the pass:

Q: Why don't the physicians post their side of the story and let the public decide who is more correct?

A: The docs cannot simply post their side of the story on a patient's blog in response to the complaints. HIPAA's privacy provisions generally prevent physicians and their staff from doing so.

In the court of public opinion, only patients have a voice. It's little wonder that some docs might choose to reply via the official court system, because they have no other recourse.

Re:How Else Can You Decide Which Doctor to Choose

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

I have a family member in medical. And they come home sometimes complaining about a Doc's incompetence. I said, "I know you and I can check up on another doc with you. What's the average Joe supposed to do?"
Answer: "They're fucked."

I think it's really shitty that the average person can't go and check ratings of healthcare workers and institutions. Believe me, a lot of shit isn't reported. A lot of incompetence is hidden. And unless the AMA starts weeding docs better, the only recourse the average Joe has is to gamble with his health and sue if need be.