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.

40 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Behold the power of Barbra by tepples · · Score: 2

    It's a followup to a previous article featured on Slashdot, showing how the Streisand effect is strong enough to shut down a health care practice.

  2. Form Paperwork Used by Many by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. What's most surprising about this story. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract. According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient, but how many dentists go around spilling the beans about their patients' teeth? And are your tooth secrets that serious that you'd be willing to sign over copyright of your internet posts so your dentist will keep them? Are you really that afraid your friends will find out you don't floss regularly?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most patients, when walking into the office of a new medical provider, are given a stack of forms to sign by a harried receptionist who expects them to just sign the paperwork and hand it back. Few people actually read them.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses

    3. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    4. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses"

      Me too. And I have a good story. You should be aware that this works both ways, and you can use it to your advantage.

      Years ago, I had to take a pee test for a pre-employment "drug screening". I have a strong philosophical objection to that practice, but I wanted the job so I did it. (I don't do that anymore, but that's another story.)

      So I got to the clinic, which specialized in doing pee tests en masse. Big waiting room, lots of chairs and people, window with a woman behind it. She handed me a form to sign on a clipboard, and I sat down and read the whole thing. And it amazed me. The form said that the clinic could tell anybody (not just the company) anything they wanted about my pee test, even if it was wrong, and I waived any right to hold them responsible in any way.

      I went up to the window and asked the woman: "Do I understand this correctly? You are in the business of doing these tests, yes?"

      "Yes"

      "But in order for you to test me, I have to waive any right to sue you or hold you responsible, even if you screw it up?"

      (Annoyed look) "It's just a standard form."

      I said "Well, I don't think it is. I think I'd like to own a business where nobody could hold me responsible for actually performing the service they pay me for. Seems like a pretty sweet deal." She looked pretty pissed off.

      I sat back down, looking it over. And on the second page of the fine print, where it said I could not hold them responsible, I penned in "Except in case of negligence."

      I signed the form and gave it back to the woman. She didn't even look at it... just signed and dated it, and threw it into the pile of papers to file.

      Hahaha. I could have written in "And I get to fuck your brother" and nobody would even have noticed. But it was just as legal a contract as anything THEY handed ME.

    5. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      How do you live? If I read to legal understanding everything I've signed, I'd still be reading. It'd take weeks to buy a house, not just an hour with three or more sets of lawyers sitting in a room while they shuffle the buyer and seller through at separate times on the same day (always the same day so that the funding from the buy hits the sale on the same day to pay off the previous mortgage, if any). In some cases, the contract isn't even available. I've signed things that apply to non-supplied terms and conditions that are available on some web site somewhere. Do you really suspend a sale to look them up and read them, then come back later and complete the sale?

    6. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by nbauman · · Score: 2

      There may be a touch of justification for this. The confidentiality laws are one-sided. A patient can criticize a doctor or dentist, but under HIPAA, the doctor or dentist can't defend himself because the doctor is under an obligation of confidentiality. So you could call that a loophole.

      When somebody sues a doctor for malpractice, as part of the filing the doctor is released from HIPAA confidentiality to defend himself.

      This contract may be intended to say, "Since I can't defend myself in public, you can't attack me in public either."

      But I don't think it's good contract. You can't require a patient not to complain, for the reasons described in the article. The dentist might have been able to get the patient to agree that if he complains about her in public, he waives his confidentiality and she has a right to reply.

      Medical Justice seemed to have tried something clever by turning it into a copyright issue so they could enforce it with CDA takedown notices. It looks like they were a little too clever. That didn't hold up.

      She should have stuck with meatpuppets raving about what a wonderful dentist she is.

    7. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by hawguy · · Score: 2

      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.

      I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.

      For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she started the procedure, she said that after she removed the old amalgam filling and some decayed areas that there wasn't enough tooth surface support a filling, so she'd need to do a crown instead.

      It seems like this clause would help protect her if I later complained that I went to her for a simple filling and she sold me an expensive crown.

      I don't think any contract clause would protect her if she tried to force an unneeded root canal on me.

    8. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You mistakenly assumed my stance. I stated that it would take a very long time to read everything. I have a pack from my closing. It's more than 100 pages. Reading for comprehension of a set of contracts that long would likely not be under an hour.

      I understand clicking through a EULA for a video game or something,

      Ah, like all jackasses, you don't follow your own rules, but you have excuses why your way and only your way is the right way. No other way is acceptable. Got it.

    9. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Raenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah, since you mentioned the verbal part I thought it was essential to your dispute. Something else has been nagging me, though, and it's your statement, "The 'bad debt' from 1991 was still on my credit report last I looked. It's 'active' and renewed for another 7 years every time it's sold from one collection agency to another."

      That looked so rotten that I had a hard time believing it was legal, and a preliminary search shows it isn't:

      "[..] Federal law requires the lender to report the original delinquency date of the account that led to charge off and any subsequent collection efforts. The original delinquency date is the date from which the seven year period is measured.

      The original account and any subsequent collection accounts are deleted seven years from the original delinquency date. Because each account must include the original delinquency date, none should return to your credit history. [..]"

    10. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I agree with you. That's not how collection agencies roll. They are evil. It was more for background.

      And yes, I contested the appearance on my credit report once, and the agency (no I don't remember which I challenged it on), and it was found to be "valid". The "validation" is sending a message to the claimed debt holder and asking if it's valid. There's no actual verification of the original debt. The system is broken. The only winning move is not to play.

      They reported it as a "new" debt under their own name when it got close to the 7 years, and not under the original debt holder. And the challenges never go back to the original debt holder anyway. The system is broken. I can't count the number of threats of law suits a $400 debt got me. Every time it got sold to a new company, they'd send a batch of them out, with increasing threats until... nothing happened.

      They violated a large number of laws when dealing with me. I didn't bother to list them. It was a Bally's but they don't list any Bally's in Texas now, so someone may have chased them down on it.

    11. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't count the number of threats of law suits a $400 debt got me.

      Something similar happened to me and it bugged the heck out of me until I finally had a flash of insight. The collection agency was always willing to threaten me with "We have a recording of our last conversation. Would you like me to play it back for you?"

      One day they threatened to sue. I replied "You promise?" The collection troll didn't understand. "If you sue me, then we get to go in front of a judge who will force you to shut up long enough for me to explain why I don't owe any money. I want you to sue me."

      "Well, we will."

      "OK. Just remember, you promised."

      They called me a couple of times after that. I reminded them of the fact that they had promised to sue me and I was waiting to be served papers to appear in court. I also reminded them that they had a recording of them promising to sue me.

      They hung up on me a couple of times and then I never heard from them or anyone else about it again.

    12. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      Yes. That too many Americans sheepishly suspend their rights in the name of convenience is exactly why these practices have gotten too far out of hand in the first place. We are no longer the same people who went to war against our King because we were required to use name-brand paper (the Stamp Act) and repay the Crown for the cost of the French and Indian War.

    13. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract."

      Read the Ars Technica piece by the writer who tried to say "no" to such a contract. In short: he gets booted out the door. Now imagine you're in pain and maybe scared about a possible medical emergency (as the patient in the lawsuit here was). Situations like that is why oversight of a time-critical service like this is needed.

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech/

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    14. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by Gavrielkay · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      I live quite well, and I know what the conditions of things I've signed for. How do YOU live not knowing what you've actually agreed to. In my state (Illinois) , the contract for the sale of a house has to be given to you 24 hours in advance of you signing it, and yes, I read it. Well, technically, I last "purchased" a house 20+ years ago, but I just refinanced it a year ago or so.

      If I'm agreeing to a 15-30 year deal, then an hour (maybe two) isn't that big of a deal spending to make sure that all the money I've investing in the purchase isn't going to go away because of some stupid clause. It's people like you that complain that OMG someone should have protected you from your own stupidity. As if there should have been some way to avoid bad situations, oh, but wait, there was.. READ WHAT YOU AGREE TO. Seriously, take some damn responsibility for your own actions. Most contracts aren't very difficult to read, but if you seriously have that big of a problem reading it, take it to a lawyer you trust. Then you can pay him a couple hundred dollars to read it and explain it to you.

    17. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But in your case the clause wouldn't have been necessary as she informed you before the procedure what may actually have to be done. You could have told her that you couldn't afford the crown, so if the tooth can't support a filling just remove it (unlikely, but it's your prerogative).

    18. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by swillden · · Score: 2

      You mistakenly assumed my stance. I stated that it would take a very long time to read everything. I have a pack from my closing. It's more than 100 pages. Reading for comprehension of a set of contracts that long would likely not be under an hour.

      Maybe I read slower than you do, but it takes me about two hours. I warn the title company in advance that I am going to read everything and ask questions about anything I don't understand, so they schedule a two-hour block for my closing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      Are you impulse buying houses?

      A purchase that'll be, at an absolute minimum, tens of thousands of pounds and likely to have long-term consequences does not strike me as being someone one rushes through to avoid having to read small print.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    20. Re:What's most surprising about this story. by scotts13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  4. Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!"

      The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues. All this also assumes the complaints are real and not just made up derogatory astroturfing online of competitors.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by mark-t · · Score: 2

      In particular, the only things that can ever potentially be copyrighted are creative works. Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.

    3. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      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.

      Courts do not analyze consideration with that degree of detail. In order for there to be consideration, both sides have to agree to provide something of value and/or agree not to do something that they otherwise had the right to do (provide services, tender payment, agree to a property boundary, not disparage each other, etc.). The contract has to have mutual obligations. If I contract to give you $20 in exchange for absolutely nothing, it's not a contract -- it's a non-contractual promise to make a gift. If I contract to give you $20 to shovel my walk and not drink alcohol for a week, that's a presumably enforceable contract.

      Courts do not break apart the transaction to say which consideration was exchanged for what part -- if there is a single contract, it's a single package. The fact that you could get dentistry elsewhere without agreeing to the covenant means that you could have refused and taken your custom elsewhere, yet instead chose to contract -- who's to say why. Courts will rarely look at the relative value of what was exchanged -- the key is that something was exchanged.

      This is why there is a bar exam. You could not have been more wrong if you'd tried.

    4. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by Zemran · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My ex-wife does catering for local hotels, i.e. she rents their restaurants and runs them for them. So I know a little bit about the local hotels. Last year a friend wanted to stay in my city but he wanted a top end hotel and my ex works with the mid range hotels so apart from asking her advice I looked at the internet sites. Most had very similar comments. Several comments were very obviously professionally written and I could even see the same style of writing in several comments. Anyway, one hotel interested me. It had several comments including a story about room service stealing a guests mobile phone and about how the guest was very badly treated by reception when they complained. There were lots of replies and debate about how terrible this was. The story interested me because I knew that the hotel had not opened yet and had not employed any staff.

      The hotels hire advertising companies who will write glowing stories about the hotel (lies) and write bad stories about the opposition. I am talking about hotels but I am sure that the concept applied to all areas of debate on the internet.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    5. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by am+2k · · Score: 2, Funny

      Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.

      I'm pretty sure that Fox News "news" are copyrightable.

    6. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues.

      The BBB is a scam, they just have really good marketing like DeBeers quality marketing.

      The way it works is that dues-paying BBB members get to have their records wiped of any unresolved complaints after a certain period, usually about a year although it varies between BBB offices. Non-members do not get their records wiped under any circumstances. So when a disgruntled customer files a BBB complaint about a non-member business, the BBB uses that as a marketing tool to get that business to start paying dues.

      The end result is that you can only trust BBB records of non-members, because they never get wiped, while a dues-paying BBB "member in good standing" may have hundreds of unresolved complaints that have simply expired. Occasionally a BBB office will "fire" a really egregious dues-paying member, but AFAIK there is no consistent set of rules across all BBB offices for when, if ever, that is required.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Try staying at a hotel for a week or two someplace where you don't speak the local language and you can't even read signs written in the local alphabet.

      There are other use cases than "crash and dash".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm an asshole because I suggest that content of character is more important than (mostly innate) qualities like intelligence and appearance?

    I stand by what I said: values are more important than skills. A good person is better than a clever or a sexy person.

    I have found kids to judge people only based on "niceness" too, until the adult competitive world bashes into their head that they must look at less important things. Hormones do make people care about physical appearance, but the particularly physical qualities people find attractive vary tremendously except when society forces particular obsessions (e.g. in the US breasts are a huge taboo therefore big breasts are a Thing in the US, whereas in Europe people fixate much less on them).

  6. Re:still no match for Orly Taitz by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "values held by rich people who were brought up properly"... Like, knowing how to scam properly to not get caught, or at least get bailed out by taxpayer money? Or what exactly do you mean?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re: still no match for Orly Taitz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Who gives a fuck? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 2

    Before you judge others you should learn English. 'Pretence' is English for the word that Americans write as 'pretense'.

    Actually, 'Pretence' is the screwed up spelling Great Britain uses for the word 'pretense'.

    Yes, the English people have the screwed up version of the English language and the Americans have it completely right, as always, and non-Americans aren't allowed to use the English version.

  9. Re:"murica by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Land of the free

    Sounds better than the land of unbalanced malloc, don't you think?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Re : Same thing happened to me a week ago. by The+Aditya+Nath+Jha · · Score: 2

    I live in India. Here some people are still trapped in superstitious beliefs and practices. There's spiritual guide named as Nirmal Baba, I wrote a post against him on my blog highlighting the ways he was using to corrupt the minds of the common people. The post was written one year ago. After that I had promoted it for a while, did some SEO and stuff. And then it faded away as Nirmal Baba obscured from public view because the media was targeting him one year ago. Then slowly the channels started shutting their mouths. His show " The third eye of Nirmal Baba" started re-airing on all the news channels in the morning slot as was earlier. I realized that things can't be changed. Nirmal Baba is a millionaire. He shut those people up. Sued everyone writing against him and then came my turn. I was sent a legal notice for writing against him, here's the link of the legal notice to read online : http://goo.gl/rWOvbn I talked to a lawyer. I was assured that if matters go into court, I would win. But I was also made alert that the potential harassment by followers of the Baba could make my life a nightmare. I DELETED THAT BLOG POST. (Here's the original html files : http://goo.gl/vm2Ske )And that's the price I had to pay. Forget morals and standing up against wrong, Same as here, the dentist is misusing the legal powers to shut people up from expressing what they truly feel. This is not what happens in a democracy! And if the people aren't free to post on the internet, then we are surely entering a despotic age!

  11. Dentist Who by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Funny

    The much less popular time lord.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  12. Copyright not her only worry by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:"murica by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Again, with the "blame Bush" ... oh wait .. never mind ;)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.