Oregon Live Today: Doctor Sues Patient Over Negative Yelp Review

Doctor Sues Patient Over Negative Yelp Review

November 6, 2015

Oregon Live Today

BELLEVUE, Wash. — A Bellevue doctor has filed a defamation lawsuit over a negative review one of his patients left him online.

KIRO-TV reports that Dr. Alan Brown filed a lawsuit against Wendy Wester after she left a Yelp review claiming Brown’s misdiagnosis of her injury caused her to suffer a life-threatening blood clot.

Brown, who has a law degree in addition his medical degree specializing in orthopedic surgery, filed the suit last week saying Wester made false and malicious statements and damaged his business and reputation.

Wester’s attorney called the lawsuit crazy, saying his client was expressing her opinion about her doctor. He says the Yelp comments were protected by the First Amendment as free speech.

Source

Cross Reference

Other Doctor Defamation Lawsuits

Advertisements

The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Cites Mckee V. Laurion In Its Supreme Court Of Oregon Amicus Brief About Carol C. Neumann And Dancing Deer Mountain V. Christopher Liles

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

CAROL C. NEUMANN and DANCING DEER MOUNTAIN, LLC, an Oregon Domestic Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Respondents, Respondents on Review

v.

CHRISTOPHER LILES, Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant, Petitioner on Review

Lane County Circuit Court

Court of Appeals A149982

Supreme Court S062575

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. AMICUS CURIAE INTENDS TO FILE A BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE ON REVIEW

Court of Appeals opinion dated: March 12, 2014

I. REVIEW OF THE DECISION IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THE PROPER ANALYSIS OF OPINION IN DEFAMATION ACTIONS

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“Reporters Committee”) urges this Court to take review of the Court of Appeals’ decision (the “Decision”) in order to resolve a conflict between state and federal courts in Oregon on an issue of fundamental importance to free speech: the proper analysis of opinion in a defamation action. The Decision’s narrow application of that doctrine is at odds with recent federal case law originating from Oregon, creating uncertainty that makes it not only difficult for journalists to report news to the public without increased fear of civil liability, but also harms the public’s ability to engage in public discourse online. The confusion the Decision creates concerning what may be stated in an online review, and what will expose a commenter to liability, could effectively limit free speech and thus have serious consequences for public debate.

The news media has a substantial interest in advocating for robust protections for statements of opinion, and in ensuring that the hyperbole commonly employed in the context of online speech is fully considered when analyzing whether challenged speech constitutes protected opinion. The right to express one’s opinion is a cornerstone of the promotion of public discourse and the free flow of ideas. The internet provides a wealth of opportunities for consumers to offer reviews of products and services, and for other consumers to make more informed decisions based on others’ opinions. Because the internet is a forum that thrives on immediate give-and-take, discourse naturally tends to be more hyperbolic, and it is vital for courts to take that context into account when determining whether online speech is actionable. It is crucial that Oregon courts not adopt an analysis that will limit the free flow of ideas and opinions in online forums.

II. REVIEW OF THE DECISION IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THE PROPER ANALYSIS OF OPINION IN DEFAMATION

The Decision’s analysis places state and federal courts in Oregon at odds over the proper interpretation of the opinion doctrine under the First Amendment. This case thus presents an important opportunity for this Court to address the non-uniform application of the opinion doctrine in Oregon courtrooms.

The Court of Appeals rejected defendant Christopher Liles’s argument that numerous statements that he made in his review of Dancing Deer Mountain on the website Google.com were not actionable as opinion and/or hyperbolic statements, and therefore not defamatory. In particular, the Decision concludes that, in the context of an online review of a consumer’s business experience, the words “rude” and “crooked” to describe the plaintiff were defamatory.

See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567, 578-79 (2014). That analysis is difficult to reconcile with the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F3d 1284 (9th Cir 2014), which held (in an appeal from the District of Oregon) that the defendant’s use of such terms as “immoral,” “thugs,” and “evil doers” to describe the plaintiff on her website was not defamatory. Obsidian Finance, 740 F3d at 1294. The Ninth Circuit based its decision on the context of the statements, including the general tenor of the posts and the fact that they were made on an online blog in which the defendant used “extreme language,” indicating to the court that much of what the defendant wrote was hyperbole. See id. In short, the Ninth Circuit’s analysis factored in the realities of the online medium of communication in evaluating the context of the statements.

The Decision here, in contrast, rejects the argument that defendant’s challenged statements were hyperbole. Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App at 579. The Decision reached that conclusion despite the fact that defendant titled his online review “Disaster!!!!! Find a different wedding venue” and included the statement “The worst wedding experience of my life!” Both statements signify that the defendant was using hyperbole of the type common in online forums. Yet the Decision concludes that the “bulk of the post is not rhetorical and factual,” apparently including the challenged statements “rude” and “crooked.” Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App at 578-79. As discussed below, that analysis is flawed in that it fails to properly consider the context of the statements.

But in any event, just as significant for purposes of this Court’s review is the Decision’s suggestion that such an analysis may be of only limited relevance to Oregon courts, because it is based on “extra-jurisdictional authority” from the Ninth Circuit’s “First Amendment jurisprudence.” See 261 Or App at 579 (“To the extent that extra-jurisdictional authority informs our analysis, we disagree that defendant’s statements, as a whole, are hyperbolic”).1 The protection afforded to speech should not depend on whether a defendant is in a state or federal court in Oregon. The Decision’s analysis, however, suggests that reality.

It is not simply an issue of an inconsistency with Ninth Circuit authority. If this Court grants review, the Reporters Committee intends to file a brief addressing why binding United States Supreme Court precedent supports a more robust evaluation of context in determining whether a challenged statement is actionable, focusing on two broad principles reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 US 1 (1990): First, “a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability.” Id. at 19-20 (citations omitted). And second, a statement is not defamatory if it “cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an individual,” a requirement that the Court described as “provid[ing] assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). The Reporters Committee intends to argue how these principles, and the case law on which they are based, support a fuller analysis – and a different result – than that in the Decision.

It was error for the Court of Appeals not to fully consider the context of the purportedly defamatory statements. The Reporters Committee urges this Court to grant review in this case to establish the framework for Oregon courts to consider that context in the future. That framework should provide that any evaluation of opinion or hyperbole in an online setting must include consideration of both the importance of contributing to a robust public discourse on issues of public concern as well as the more informal and hyperbolic context of online reviews.

Failure of the courts to take such context into account could result not only in the imposition of excessive liability on members of the public who choose to share their opinions online, but the chilling of this type of speech.

Online sites such as Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Google Plus provide public forums for consumers to post their opinions of service providers for other members of the public to read and use to make their own consumer choices. Such sites are invaluable resources for today’s average consumer, who can now look to innumerable reviews available online to decide where to eat, which doctor to visit, or how to choose a provider of virtually any service imaginable. Sharing information and views on these services is unquestionably a matter of public interest and concern. It is critical that consumers be able to post reviews without fear that their negative opinions and frequent hyperbole will result in a lawsuit, and a potentially staggering amount of financial penalties.

This emphasis on the statement’s context is particularly applicable in cases involving online consumer reviews. Such reviews must be evaluated in a way that recognizes their informality of expression and tendency toward hyperbole. Like online message boards, review websites encourage a “looser, more relaxed communication style,” allowing users to “engage freely in informal debate and criticism.” Krinsky v. Doe, 159 Cal App 4th 1154, 1162-63 (Cal Ct App 2008). In this setting, “[h]yperbole and exaggeration are common, and ‘venting’ is at least as common as careful and considered argumentation.” Larissa Barnett Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke LJ 855, 863 (2000). Online forums for consumer reviews—which are in many ways designed for “venting”—encourage posters to use a different tone, and that is the context in which writers and readers understand the reviews.

The question of how to evaluate online review opinions in defamation actions is one that many courts around the country are facing.  As these suits For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a TripAdvisor ranking of the “Dirtiest Hotels” on their website was protected, non-actionable opinion because the tone of the list made clear that actual facts were not being stated. See Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC, 728 F3d 592 (6th Cir 2013); see also, e.g., McKee v. Laurion, 825 NW2d 725 (Minn 2013) (dismissing doctor’s defamation claims against patient’s son who wrote negative reviews on rate-your-doctor websites about the care his father received)  The Reporters Committee urges this Court to take review and establish that framework for Oregon courts.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Reporters Committee urges this Court to accept review of the Decision. If such review is granted, the Reporters Committee expects to file a brief on the merits.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2014.

SOURCE

Newman V. Liles History

McKee V. Laurion History

John Washam: Oregon Dentist Sues Patient For $300,000 For Bad Online Review

SEPTEMBER 2, 2012

“Oregon Dentist Sues Patient For $300,000 For Bad Online Review”

John Washam, Talk To The Manager

Dr. Mo Saleh, dentist, is suing a patient for $300,000, stating that the review his patient, Spencer Bailey, posted on Yelp is costing his business $100,000 a week.

Bailey now has a lawyer and an expensive court battle ahead of him after his fallout with Dr. Saleh who works at Optima Dental in Lake Oswego.

Bailey suspected he was getting questionable care. “I had never had a cavity before I set foot in his office,” he said. “He told me the day that I saw him that I had 10 or so cavities, which threw me for a loop – I was nervous that I had some other health problem.”

Bailey said three weeks after he posted his review, Dr. Saleh demanded Bailey take down the posting or be sued. Bailey said he removed it immediately. “In hindsight it didn’t matter, because even though I took down the opinion online, I’m still right here,” he said.

This type of lawsuit is not new, and we expect to see more in the future. Such lawsuits expose the legal struggle between free speech and responsible speech, meaning that these reviews can damage business’ reputations.

Source

Dentist Mo Saleh

Dentist Lawsuits

Doctor Lawsuits

KATU News: Dentist Loses Suit After Former Patient Criticizes Him Online

SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

“Dentist Loses Suit After Former Patient Criticizes Him Online”

Lincoln Graves, KATU News

A judge decided the critical comments made on review site YELP.com and other sites were free speech.

“I’m disgusted. I’m actually really disgusted,” said dentist Mo Saleh, who tried to sue his former client, Spencer Bailey, for defamation after finding negative reviews on the Internet. “The reason I’m risking opportunity and risking this negative exposure is because I feel that this is wrong.”

But a judge threw out the suit before it got very far.

“When we walked into this courtroom, we didn’t walk on equal footing because of the Anti-SLAPP law,” Saleh said. The “SLAPP” in the Anti-SLAPP law stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Businesses can sometimes file those suits to quiet criticism. But the Anti-SLAPP law can be a friend to those who are taken to court, giving them free speech protection when they make comments in a public forum and concern a public interest, which a site like YELP seeks to serve.

“It’s not easy to be sued and dragged into court,” said Jeremiah Ross, the attorney who represented Bailey. “Just as we anticipated, they couldn’t prove their case because it wasn’t a defamatory statement.”

Still, Saleh may appeal, believing the online criticism was meant to harm him and not simply to inform the public. “I teach my kids to stand up when you’ve been wronged, and I think that’s absolutely disgusting what happened today,” he said.

One of the comments Bailey was accused of making was, “If Saleh finds a cavity, get a second opinion and get it filled by someone else.”

Saleh was seeking $300,000 in damages.

Source, KATU

Source, KOMO News

Source, KVAL

Dentist Mo Saleh

Dentist Lawsuits

Doctor Lawsuits

Years Of Great Dental Marketing Erased When Dentist Sues Patient

October 12, 2012

“Years Of Great Dental Marketing Erased When Dentist Sues Patient”

Jim Du Molin, Dental Practice Marketing And Management Blog

No matter how many times The Wealthy Dentist points out that suing for a negative online review is just bad dental marketing, another case makes headlines.

Three weeks ago we reported on dentist, Mo Saleh, who was suing a former dental patient for $300,000 for damage to his reputation and loss of revenue stemming from what he felt was an inflammatory negative online review.

And just this week the judge in the case decided to throw the lawsuit out, stating that online comments made by the dental patient were free speech.

To prove that the dental patient was guilty of libel, the dentist would have to establish that the statements made in the online review were false, that they caused the dentist harm, and were posted without proper research into the validity of the comments.

But if the online review is considered a statement of opinion about the dentist, as opposed to actual facts, then the dentist won’t get very far in a lawsuit for defamation, and here in California, as well as in Oregon, the law takes it one step further with Anti-SLAPP legislation.

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from activity exercising the rights of petition and free speech. (The California Anti-SLAPP Project). The same is true on Oregon, where the dentist’s lawsuit was initiated.

According to KVAL news, Dr. Saleh may appeal the judges verdict, if he feels that the online review was meant to harm him and not simply to inform the public.

The Wealthy Dentist argues that Dr. Saleh’s money would be better spent initiating a new dental marketing campaign targeted at showcasing what his dental practice has to offer and bringing in new dental patients.

Most of the general public is beginning to look at negative online reviews with some skepticism because of many of the outlandish comments reviewers have made. Someone looking for a local dentist may see the negative review, but will also read the positive reviews, and probably ask a few people they know in the community for a recommendation. They most likely won’t make their decision based on one reviewer’s comments, and if a dental patient did decide on a dentist based on just one review, then a dentist might not want them as a dental patient.

But a dentist can do more damage to their reputation themselves and erase years of great dental marketing by engaging in litigation with a dental patient who has written a poor review of their dental practice.

Instead, spend that money on making your dental practice the best practice in town.

Jim Du Molin is a leading Internet marketing expert for dentists in North America. He has helped hundreds of doctors make more money in their practices using his proven Internet marketing techniques.

Source

Dentist Mo Saleh

Dentist Lawsuits

Doctor Lawsuits

 

Julie Anne: Dr. Mo Saleh Sues Former Patient for Negative Review

September 1, 2012

“Dr. Mo Saleh Sues Former Patient for Negative Review

Julie Anne, BGBC Survivors

Spencer Bailey did not care for the dental service provided Dr. Mo Saleh and left a negative review of his experience on Yelp.com.  Dr. Saleh didn’t care for Bailey’s negative review and sued him for $300,000.

What if I had a bad experience? Can I say something negative?

We like to hear about the good, the bad, and everything in between. Be sure to include all the relevant facts and details, and don’t embellish your story for effect. We are big believers in freedom of speech, but beware the legal consequences if you post false information.

Yelp.com says it is okay for Spencer Bailey to leave a negative review as long as the information is true.

Did this dentist not pay attention to the news in his local area?  It made quite a stir in Portland both around the middle of May, when the media found the story, and then again mid-July with the final hearing.  It was on most every local news station and newspaper as well as national level, and overseas.  Maybe this dentist did see the news and just thinks he is special.  That could be the case.  Do people who file defamation lawsuits have similar character profiles?  That’s an interesting thought.

Dear Dr. Saleh:  Let me help you out.  You will most likely not win this case.  Yelp is a site for “opinions”.  Opinions are protected speech.   Let me save you a lot of money.  You might consider the following:

  • Pull out now.  Withdraw the lawsuit immediately.  Don’t waste any more attorney fees.  You must do this immediately as now that the media has the story, your reputation could be far worse.  Go look at my former pastor’s reviews to see what happened when people heard about a pastor suing former church members.
  • Look up Streisand Effect to see what happens in cases like mine (and yours).  The Streisand Effect would not be good for your reputation.  You will be doing far worse to yourself than Bailey ever did by his one negative review, which would have been buried by positives (if you really are a good dentist as you claim).
  • Issue a press release (maximum of 2 paragraphs – do not follow the example of the press release I have shown on my blog – that is far too long and will subject you to more public criticism).  In the press release, consider expressing your heartfelt sorrow for having caused grief to Mr. Bailey.  You might need to make things right with him because he could sue you!

Personal note to Spencer Bailey:   Congratulations, Spencer – – I now see that you’ve got the best representation in Oregon!

Follow-Up to this story 9/3/12

I just read the Willamette Week news article on this case a few minutes ago and was so pleased to read that Spencer Bailey is in very good hands.  He is being represented by my attorney, Linda Williams, and Jeremiah Ross.  Woohoo!!  And of course they have filed the motion to strike using the anti-SLAPP statute.  The first hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.  You can be sure I will be watching this case.

This article also shares what Spencer said in his reviews.

The reviews cited in the complaint include statements saying Bailey implied ”improper and insufficient dental services by Dr. Saleh.” The complaint further alleges that Bailey wrote, “if Dr. Saleh tells you that you have a cavity — GET A SECOND OPINION.”

According to the complaint. Bailey said he had never had a cavity in 32 years until Saleh found several. Bailey’s lawyers have responded by stating that Bailey went to Saleh for dental work and then went to another dentist after experiencing pain. They claim that the other dentist advised Bailey that some of the fillings were unnecessary and some were poorly put in.

Bailey’s attorneys, Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams, also claimed that Saleh contacted Bailey after he reviewed the dentist on various web sites, threatening him to remove them. They say Bailey removed the postings out of concern for his and his family’s safety. Even though Bailey removed the postings, Saleh is proceeding with his suit. (Saleh’s lawyer declined to comment.)

COMMENTS:

Anonymous: If he has 10 cavities, then no problem. If he doesn’t then there is a problem. If he violated Yelp’s policy and wrote an outright lie as fact, then he has a problem. He was specific in his allegation. People need to understand that their words have consequences and if those consequences are damaging, then they should be prepared to pay a price equal to the amount of damage that they cause. It is right for the party in the wrong in an auto accident to pay damages then the party committing libel should have to pay up as well. I doubt that this guy caused $300,000 in damages and he took his statement down quickly. However, some lawyer is going to figure it out one day and some mean and hate filled people are going to change their attitudes. The problem is that most stupid people who have time to waste writing knee jerk nonsensical reviews do not have any money and the lawyers will pass. He will likely win, but not because it is okay to write lies and hide behind freedom of speech. Speaking of free speech, is it okay to give out legal advice? What if the legal advice turns out to cost someone? Is the person that gives out legal advice responsible for their words or is that protected under freedom of speech as well?

Julie Anne: I’ve got my spray can ready, Anonymous. BTW: Where do you get this: “He was specific in his allegation.” Where is his allegation referenced? I haven’t seen the original review anywhere or a copy of it anywhere.

Anonymous: Hmmm. I thought that I gave a pretty honest assessment. Not sure how what I wrote offends you. According to the the quote in the news article that I read, he was specific about the number of cavities that the dentist said he found. That seems pretty specific. I just don’t think that it is right for people to take shots at someone because they are in business and for no other good reason. That certainly was not the founders intent when the Bill of Rights was written. I do not think that the Anti-Slapp law was written to stop something like this from being heard in court either. Both legal concepts are exploited by people with too much time on their hands. Just my opinion, but there are many that agree with me. This dentist is probably ill advised to bring such a suit and is very likely to lose. He certainly has the right to defend himself.

Julie Anne: So you are implying that this guy is taking shots at someone just because they are in business? Ok. That explains everything. We’ll see how this plays out and I think you are missing the purpose of the anti-SLAPP. Let’s say that Bailey was wrong at posting his review (I don’t have enough information to say that at all). He was asked to remove his negative comment – actually, he was threatened by legal action to remove it. So Bailey removed it and was still sued. Who is showing bully behavior here?

An Attorney: It is my opinion that the dentist will suffer the “Streisand effect” and that might result in him having to relocate to have a successful practice. Anonymous, if it is clearly an opinion, then the statement is protected speech under the First Amendment and under the Oregon Anti-SLAPP law. And Yelp states that the statements therein are opinion and not matters of fact. BTW, if the dentist was wrong about the cavities, he could also be liable for malpractice, as well as having to pay the defendant’s legal bills, which can run to $50,000 very quickly. There are too many people who get in a hurry to sue without counting the costs and the risks before doing so. I suspect that the dentist will suffer more loss of business from the suit than from the comment. It is called shooting oneself in the foot with the aid of an attorney!

Julie Anne: An Attorney – your comment got stuck in my spam box . So sorry! Most reasonable people who read review sites realize that there will always be a few negative comments and will disregard them if the large majority of comments are positive. This dentist, in addition to my former pastor, brought far more negative attention to themselves by suing. It’s telling the world how they deal with conflict.

Anonymous: Attorney is right and the dentist did more damage to himself than the poster. It is a little different in JA’s case and I really don’t know why Oneal did not go after the “false report” a bit stronger. I believe that I would have gotten all of that out and then launched a targeted lawsuit against whomever was responsible. If anything, that set of events related to his family getting investigated was well over the line. Stalking is never acceptable, either.

Watcher of Anonymous: There goes Anonymous again. Perhaps Anonymous should ask the source about why they didn’t use Anonymous’ wisdom and do things Anonymous’ way. And do some of Anonymous’ suggestions about this and that constitute “free legal advice”? Anonymous proves again that Anonymous is logically inconsistent.

Anonymous: Does not look like much of a thread going here. But, you read your history and case law concerning Anti-Slapp and then get back to me. I think that you will find that it is for two things: To protect Freedom of Speech, and to assure that regular people have a voice at public hearings concerning property rights and zoning. Anything other than that is just plain abuse and giving one party more rights over another. I should lose money and my right to recover so that someone can entertain themselves? It is not intended to allow someone to hide behind the First Amendment and inflict damages on another party for whatever reason. Before you say it ain’t so, you study up real good. Start with the Federalist papers and work up.

Watcher of Anonymous: Anonymous must seem to find “stirring the pot” comments and demands for others to “get back to me” to be entertaining. Ironic. Perhaps Anonymous is addicted to ensuring there’s “much of a thread going”? Julie Anne doesn’t owe Anonymous or Anonymous’ demand anything. Maybe Anonymous needs to have Anonymous’ own blog to lay out Anonymous’ own theory of the import of the Federalist papers and etc.

An Attorney: First Amendment jurisprudence allows opinion that is negative about someone and protects it as free speech from being defamation. The Anti-SLAPP law just allows those who win after being sued for expressing opinion to recover their legal fees. The law does not pay the defendant, just their legal fees and legal costs.

Kathi: Wow! This is the first I’ve heard of this. If I were a patient at that orthodontist’s office, I would most likely leave his practice and find another orthodontist. I don’t think I’d like the chance of being sued if I felt that he was not providing a good service. The only other case I’ve seen recently was about an orthodontist being sued by a man who says that the doctor intentionally left his braces on for 11 years! I think there’s more to that story.

Julie Anne: I’m curious, Kathi, do you use review sites like Google, Yelp, DexKnows? I’ve been using review sites for years – primarily when looking for hotels, restaurants, etc. Some might find this surprising, but I rarely leave a negative review. If I receive service that goes over and above the normal expected service, I like to give a shout-out by leaving a positive review. I have definitely gone to places where I could have left negative reviews, but instead, prefer to handle those in person and usually they get the situation resolved that way. I have left positive reviews after having a negative experience and then explain how management made things right. That is important, too. On this sentence: “ I don’t think I’d like the chance of being sued if I felt that he was not providing a good service.” are you saying that you wouldn’t like the risk of being sued if you left a negative review?

Kathi: I use Yelp mostly for looking at reviews of places. I have left a couple, but nothing negative. However, I have a friend who uses Yelp quite a bit. She left a negative review on a restaurant and received a good response back from the owner. You just never know how a person is going to respond to a negative review. I would hope that the business would take it seriously and learn from the person making the comment. I think that most who take it poorly, such as those who decide to sue, are under the impression that they are the best at what they do. So, who is the customer to question. If I were a patient at this particular doctor and I found out he was suing another patient I would get out because to me, that doctor has set a standard. I would not be comfortable going to see him knowing that if I didn’t like his service, and decided to say something to someone about it, I could be sued for my opinion. I guess that this comes from watching relatives who are sue happy and will say that they’ll sue someone if they are wronged in any way. By the way – that’s a great update on the post!

Julie Anne: I wonder how many share your thoughts, Kathi, that if they leave a negative review they might be sued? That kind of defeats the purpose of reviews if you can’t leave an honest review, even if it is negative. I don’t think I’ve ever left a negative review without going up the channels to get the situation resolved. Public reviews are obviously public and it’s important to give the benefit of the doubt first or to allow them an opportunity to make a situation better, if possible.

Headless Unicorn Guy: According to the complaint. Bailey said he had never had a cavity in 32 years until Saleh found several. Bailey’s lawyers have responded by stating that Bailey went to Saleh for dental work and then went to another dentist after experiencing pain. They claim that the other dentist advised Bailey that some of the fillings were unnecessary and some were poorly put in. Isn’t that called “Malpractice”? Or (for the suddenly-appearing cavities and unnecessary fillings) “Fraud”?

Spencer Bailey: I am Spencer Bailey, the defendant in the case against Dr. Saleh and Dental Dynamics. I stumbled across this page when I was researching your case (earily similar!). I wanted to personally thank you for calling attention to my case and to the issue of internet defamation in general. As you and I both know, being sued is scary and embarassing and I am so glad that you prevailed as well (We won our anti-SLAPP motion this morning!. Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams were expert attorneys and am so grateful for their hard work in this case. I wish you the best of luck and greatly appreciate your work in advancing this cause.

Source

Dentist Mo Saleh News

Dentist Lawsuits

Doctor Lawsuits

Willamette Week: Portland Dentist Sues Patient Over Internet Posts

September 3, 2012

“Portland Dentist Sues Patient Over Internet Posts”

Sam Stites, Willamette Week

A Portland dentist is suing a former patient for what the dentist claims are defamatory reviews in online forums.

Dr. Mo Saleh, of Dental Dynamics, originally filed suit against Spencer Bailey in Multnomah Circuit Court on June 26 seeking $300,000 after Bailey wrote about Saleh’s dental skills on Yelp, DoctorOogle.com and Google. In his lawsuit, Saleh says Bailey posts caused damage to his reputation, loss of profits and emotional distress.

The reviews cited in the complaint include statements saying Bailey implied ”improper and insufficient dental services by Dr. Saleh.” The complaint further alleges that Bailey wrote, “if Dr. Saleh tells you that you have a cavity — GET A SECOND OPINION.”

According to the complaint. Bailey said he had never had a cavity in 32 years until Saleh found several. Bailey’s lawyers have responded by stating that Bailey went to Saleh for dental work and then went to another dentist after experiencing pain. They claim that the other dentist advised Bailey that some of the fillings were unnecessary and some were poorly put in.

Bailey’s attorneys, Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams, also claimed that Saleh contacted Bailey after he reviewed the dentist on various web sites, threatening him to remove them. They say Bailey removed the postings out of concern for his and his family’s safety. Even though Bailey removed the postings, Saleh is proceeding with his suit. (Saleh’s lawyer declined to comment.)

As online commentary about all manner of topics has exploded, so too has the number of lawsuits unhappy targets have filed about such commentary. Saleh’s suit falls under what lawyers call a practice of Strategic Law Against Public Participation or SLAPP. SLAPP cases take aim at people making statements or publishing information that could be damaging to the plaintiff. Critics say these suits are sometimes little more than attempt to censor, silence and in intimidate the defendant.

Bailey’s attornies filed a motion to strike Saleh’s lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP statute, declaring that Bailey’s online reviews are free speech in a public forum. “Spencer’s review was a protected opinion and the Plaintiff cannot prove their allegations,” Ross, Bailey’s co-counsel tells Willamette Weekly via email. “Nor can they prove $300,000 in damages for a post that was up for three weeks.”

Source

Dentist Mo Saleh

Other Dentist Lawsuits

Doctor Lawsuits