Topic: Patient sues dentist over agreement not to post negative reviews
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc started this discussion 15 years ago #14,800
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/patient-sues-dentist-over-gag-order-causing-medical-justice-to-drop-it.ars?comments=1#comments-bar
Some health care providers have been using these "contracts" for awhile - requiring patients to sign away their rights to write negative reviews about the service they receive.
After receiving terrible service (overcharged, and the dentist wouldn't provide paperwork for insurance purposes), Robert Lee wrote a negative review on Yelp. Dr. Stacy Makhnevich responded Kimmo-style:
Some health care providers have been using these "contracts" for awhile - requiring patients to sign away their rights to write negative reviews about the service they receive.
After receiving terrible service (overcharged, and the dentist wouldn't provide paperwork for insurance purposes), Robert Lee wrote a negative review on Yelp. Dr. Stacy Makhnevich responded Kimmo-style:
Makhnevich responded by invoking the "privacy agreement," demanding that Lee remove his reviews. A letter dated October 17 stated that "according to The Ethics of Medical Justice/Dental Justice Agreements, under the Code of Internet Ethics, your comments are not considered constructive commentaries but rather as personal attacks to the office's well-being and reputation." It promised that "all legal possible actions will be taken against you."
Makhnevich's office also began sending him invoices purporting to charge him $100 for every day the reviews remained online. And they submitted a takedown request to Yelp and other sites under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Makhnevich's office also began sending him invoices purporting to charge him $100 for every day the reviews remained online. And they submitted a takedown request to Yelp and other sites under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #260,911
Always read what you sign.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,913
Continued...[The lawsuit] asks the court to declare that forcing patients to sign the contract constitutes a breach of "fiduiary duty and violations of dental ethics." It also argues that the contract deceives patients by promising not to use patient information for marketing purposes, despite the fact that (according to the complaint) such disclosures are already barred under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. And it asks the court to declare that the contract is unconscionable and void under New York law.
As for the copyright claims, the complaint asks the court to declare that, even if the copyright assignment is valid, the posting of the reviews is allowed by copyright's fair use doctrine.
As for the copyright claims, the complaint asks the court to declare that, even if the copyright assignment is valid, the posting of the reviews is allowed by copyright's fair use doctrine.
The dentist (pic related it's her) has of course gotten a few bad reviews on Yelp since this came out: http://www.yelp.com/biz/stacy-makhnevich-dds-new-york
Fox !FXYGNx1XR. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,914
I'm going to reply to this because you said no one would reply to it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,915
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,916
> Makhnevich's office also began sending him invoices purporting to charge him $100 for every day the reviews remained online.
Heh. Kimmo would approve.
Heh. Kimmo would approve.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,917
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,918
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Good point. It is extremely ridiculous to make someone agree to that.
Good point. It is extremely ridiculous to make someone agree to that.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,919
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,922
@260,917 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Still, people who ignorantly and voluntarily waive their rights only to cry about it later usually suck.
Still, people who ignorantly and voluntarily waive their rights only to cry about it later usually suck.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,924
@260,919 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I can see this dentist doing that though. Next time you hear about her she will be claiming a patient was staring down her blouse during a procedure.
I can see this dentist doing that though. Next time you hear about her she will be claiming a patient was staring down her blouse during a procedure.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,932
@260,922 (F)
I think it's great that people do so. I would do it too if I had the money to burn.
People sign agreements every day that are not legally enforceable - that the people who wrote them know are not legally enforceable - but it "protects" the company because no one bothers to look at whether it's valid or not. They just assume it must be, if it's written and they signed it.
After the complaint was filed, the company who wrote and sold the "contract" withdrew it. They're perfectly aware of what utter shit it is, legally. Fuck them, too.
I think it's great that people do so. I would do it too if I had the money to burn.
People sign agreements every day that are not legally enforceable - that the people who wrote them know are not legally enforceable - but it "protects" the company because no one bothers to look at whether it's valid or not. They just assume it must be, if it's written and they signed it.
After the complaint was filed, the company who wrote and sold the "contract" withdrew it. They're perfectly aware of what utter shit it is, legally. Fuck them, too.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,934
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Or people could just be a little bit smarter and demand their freedom. The 99% doesn't deserve freedom. Not because freedom isn't good for everyone, but because freedom comes at a price and they can't afford it.
Or people could just be a little bit smarter and demand their freedom. The 99% doesn't deserve freedom. Not because freedom isn't good for everyone, but because freedom comes at a price and they can't afford it.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,936
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,940
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I'm saying people who agree to shit have an obligation to keep their agreements, otherwise they are people who suck.
I'm saying people who agree to shit have an obligation to keep their agreements, otherwise they are people who suck.
WadeWilson[insert my tripcode joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,942
I'd fuck that dentist
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,943
WadeWilson[insert my tripcode replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #260,945
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,076
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,312
@previous (H)
Generally, in the US, a contract is only valid if each side agrees to give up something of value as part of the agreement (consideration). The patient agreed not to write negative reviews in exchange for the dentist keeping patient information confidential. This isn't valid consideration because health care privacy laws say the dentist has to do that anyway.
There are a few other arguments having to do with copyright law and the dentist's bad faith in entering into the contract, but the lack of consideration alone likely makes it unenforceable.
Generally, in the US, a contract is only valid if each side agrees to give up something of value as part of the agreement (consideration). The patient agreed not to write negative reviews in exchange for the dentist keeping patient information confidential. This isn't valid consideration because health care privacy laws say the dentist has to do that anyway.
There are a few other arguments having to do with copyright law and the dentist's bad faith in entering into the contract, but the lack of consideration alone likely makes it unenforceable.
(Edited 11 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,401
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
The "consideration" was the provision of service (dental work), no?
The "consideration" was the provision of service (dental work), no?
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,412
@previous (H)
No. The contract was written as a "mutual agreement to maintain privacy." The consideration to maintain privacy was material to the bargain, and without it, you don't have much regardless of anything else they tacked on.
No. The contract was written as a "mutual agreement to maintain privacy." The consideration to maintain privacy was material to the bargain, and without it, you don't have much regardless of anything else they tacked on.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,462
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
But if this contract was necessary to obtain service, is service an implicit consideration?
Could this contract have legally be formed if service had been the consideration?
But if this contract was necessary to obtain service, is service an implicit consideration?
Could this contract have legally be formed if service had been the consideration?