Slashdot Mirror
Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight
According to a report at Ars Technica, a dentist named Stacy Makhnevich, who billed herself as "the Classical Singer Dentist of New York," threatened patients who wrote bad Yelp reviews with lawsuits, along the same lines as the online dental damage-control outlined in a different Ars story in 2011. This time, though, there's something even stranger than bargaining with patients to forgo criticism: when a patient defied that demand by describing his experience in negative terms on Yelp, Makhnevich followed up on the threat by seeking a takedown order based on copyright (putatively signed over to her for any criticism that patients might write, post-visit) — then disappeared entirely when lawyers for patient Robert Lee filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of the agreement.
Who knows what's up with this dentist. But the company who provides the form paperwork is really the people that the lawyers should be going after. D. Makhnevich is only one of many many who use this company's services / products.
Also this points out why I never pay much attention to Yelp: This dentist is rightfully getting a lot of heat over this business, but most of the "opinions" about her on Yelp are by people who have almost certainly never used her services. This is how it goes when businesses get bad publicity, everyone runs to trash them on Yelp regardless of if they have ever done business with whoever is the target.
There are a number of other sites that specialize in doctor ratings from patient that have a significantly different score for this clown.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.
What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.
So what did Makhnevich give patients in exchange for that? If nothing, then there is no contract.
I suppose it's remotely possible that the patients were trading their copyright for dentistry, but that seems a pretty thin argument.
Wow, pre-teen and he already thinks he can judge a human based on intelligence.
At least judging on looks doesn't have the pretence of depth.
Neither good brain nor good body are likely to provide you with a good relationship. As the old saying goes, it is easier to teach skills than values.
Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Surely you don't think poor children in general are equally well raised. It has not to do with their qualities as humans, it's simply much more difficult. And so as a group they will be less well raised.
IANAL, however I think modifications to boiler plate contracts have to be initialized by both parties to be valid. And that's for your benefit or they could add whatever they wanted after you signed it and claim it was there all along. So, funny story, but unless you pointed out your addition to them and got someone to initial it, you probably didn't really accomplish anything.
Troll the trollers. Honed on Slashdot, used on collections agents.
I've never heard so many lies from anyone other than collections. I managed to stump them by asking them to send me an itemized bill. "I'll pay it if you can bill me for it" But all they had was that they bought some IOU off someone else who had bought it from someone else... So they had no idea of what I owned for what. $20 for pencil, $350 in fees, interest, and penalties. Nope, it was $400 - best guess as to a debt amount. Begging them to send me a written bill for what I owe so I can pay it got them confused and shut them up.
Learn to love Alaska
I imagine this class action lawsuit is not the reason she is on the run. I would think that if what Lee said was true, and she was charging insurance companies $4000 for a $200 job, she has bigger problems.
All speculation, but it seems to me this is a "take the money and run before I get discovered for widespread multimillion dollar insurance fraud" disappearing act rather than a "OMG a civil law suit! Run!" disappearing act.
So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back.
I do the same, all the time. I was once asked to take a lie detector test (for, of all things, a job at Radio Shack). When I read the forms, they reserved the right to re-sell the results of the test to anyone, in perpetuity. They also denied me any right to challenge those results. I crossed out the offensive sections and handed it in. To their credit, they (the testing company) DID read my revisions, and said it wasn't worth their while to continue under those conditions. They didn't test me, and I got the job anyway.