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

[kevin_conaway]

Verified? Its the internet. Reminds me of a quote from The Simpsons:

Lisa:Dad, you can't post that on the internet, you don't even know if its true!

Re:Just the facts, maam

[dfn5]

There are two kinds of factual statemnts:
1) true statements, and;
2) false statements.

Here is an example of a statement which is not factual because a fact is, by definition, true.

Re:Just the facts, maam

[networkBoy]

The domain name is usually considered protected speech so long as the content is not actionable (slander/libel, (C) infringement, TM infringement, etc.)

For example: http://farmersreallysucks.com/ is a website about my experience with Farmers Insurance. All I say is either factual, or commentary. In the case of factual information, it is not actionable, in the case of commentary, that too is protected speech, even if inflammitory, so long as it is not represented as fact.

I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals.

What I can not do is: Farmers, an insurance company, is comprised of asshats that eat children.

The former was a statement of opinion, the latter of fact (and not accurate, making it libel).

Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.
Cheers,
-nB

Dr. Kevorkian

[SpaceAdmiral]

That reminds me. . . I'm not entirely satisfied with my family physician.

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.

Re:IMANAL.. well.. not really..

[philbert26]

Well, IANAL, but doesn't this somehow interfere with getting out the Truth(tm) and that whole Free Speach(tm) thing that everyone is always getting worked up about? I realize that this may be hurting their business, but if they suck so much that people feel the need to complain, don't they have the right to complain?

Free speech does not give the right to libel. It never has, and that has not changed with advent of the Internet.

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.

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.

Re:First Amendment versus Sanctioned Legal Monopol

[Zigg]

So let me get this (lewrockwell.com) straight. What you're saying (lewrockwell.com) is that (lewrockwell.com) doctors (lewrockwell.com) are pure evil (lewrockwell.com)?

Re:Doctors smockters

[Just Some Guy]

I'm always late to a doctor's "appointment". Why should I have to wait for them after I already made an appointment?

Congratulations, asshole: now everyone after you has to wait even longer.

My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone. Given that her alternatives are:

1. Spend the extra required time to treat that patient, or
2. Tell them, "sorry, your allotted time is up. Please see the receptionist about scheduling more next month."

Which would you pick, and why? Would you give the same answer if your problem was the one that's taking longer than expected?

Believe it or not, the vast majority of doctors would really like to stay on schedule. Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.

In short, don't be a dick and make matters worse. A lot of the doctors I hang around with have an "n strikes" rule: screw them over n times without a legitimate excuse, and suddenly expect to find that all your appointments are at 6:30am or 7:00pm, whichever is least convenient for you. Is that really a battle you want to fight, particularly since if you weren't already sick you wouldn't be seeing them in the first place?

Sued and lost

[jmichaelg]

I had cancer in my right thigh muscle that was beginning to invade the bone. The oncologist tried radiation but it didn't help. The oncologist refered me to a surgeon to remove my right leg. Only problem was the surgeon's right was my left and the surgeon took the wrong leg. He had to go back and take the diseased leg. Hell of a thing to wake up to.

I sued and lost. Judge ruled I didn't have a leg to stand on.