ratemds deletes bad reviews of doctors

Just a warning to everyone. This site deletes legitimate bad reviews of doctors, and there are multiple listing for some doctors. There's no way to fight it they'll probably just delete this.

I know, I made a comment in

I know, I made a comment in response to a pt review saying that the dr in question never charges a co-pay.
So, I responded that I was always billed for, and paid every one of my co-pays (when I saw this dr).
I didn't think that was so bad, but it was removed and called "spam"

Maybe it's up to the moderator at the time...

Yes, this is happening.

Yes, this is happening.

RateMDs is caving to pressure to remove true but negative posts, and links to important, publically available legal case summaries and documents, without following their stated policy of requiring proof that the person requesting the take down in fact posted the comment.

Why complain about silencing patients (ala Medical Justice) when this site is guilty of the same offense? I thought this was about empowering patients to find good doctors - and conversely, avoid bad ones? Apparently not.

I nominate RateMds for the Gag Wall of Shame. I thought you intended to do good here. Disappointed.

L. Lee

To an extent I can see your

To an extent I can see your point. However as a consumer I know that some patients post bad and unjustified ratings because of personal dislike/hatred of some doctors. You have to treat people fairly. Doctors and patients do not get along all the time. I support ratemds if they delete ratings that appear to be based on dislike and intensely personal negative feelings.

I have been treated like a

I have been treated like a piece of garbage by doctors .... actually I think garbage has been treated better .

If you let us know about

If you let us know about duplicate listings, or suspicious ratings, we will investigate.

John

Susan994 wrote: To an extent

Susan994 wrote:

To an extent I can see your point. However as a consumer I know that some patients post bad and unjustified ratings because of personal dislike/hatred of some doctors. You have to treat people fairly. Doctors and patients do not get along all the time. I support ratemds if they delete ratings that appear to be based on dislike and intensely personal negative feelings.

I agree completely; however, there are just as many false positive ratings which a spam filter and a moderator would not pick up on unless they came from the same IP address.

More doctors will request a negative rating be removed than patients requesting a positive rating.

The error favors doctors by far in my opinion.

John, I wrote a rather

John, I wrote a rather lengthy and probably TOO detailed report a while back, and honestly cannot remember if I deliberately did not post it, or if you took it down for the reasons mentioned, or others. You WOULD tell a member if you decided not to use their report, right?

Seeing clearly bogus, planted

Seeing clearly bogus, planted reviews make up most of the doctor ratings, I can't even figure out why ratemds continues to exist. Same reason I do not trust Angie's List for medical or any other rating group, except at Angie's List, they actually take the initiative of sending your reviews WITH your name to any company or professional you rate on their site. So all the negatives come down and only glowing reports stand after the doctor/seller sends a threatening or nasty correspondence.

Doctors are also humans. Some

Doctors are also humans. Some are blessed to have good doctors. BUT sometimes mistakes happen even with an excellent Doctor. I have had a very bad experience with a doctor in the 90s'in Toronto. What to do?? It is not easy to forget but we have to forgive. One thing I can say is if we feel that the Doctor is not caring for our best interest and could not help us to take care of our health issues, we should not return to the Doctor. No point risking our PRECIOUS health. HEALTH is PRECIOUS and we need to take whole responsibilities in taking care of our health.

perfect wrote: Doctors are

perfect wrote:

Doctors are also humans. Some are blessed to have good doctors. BUT sometimes mistakes happen even with an excellent Doctor. I have had a very bad experience with a doctor in the 90s'in Toronto. What to do?? It is not easy to forget but we have to forgive. One thing I can say is if we feel that the Doctor is not caring for our best interest and could not help us to take care of our health issues, we should not return to the Doctor. No point risking our PRECIOUS health. HEALTH is PRECIOUS and we need to take whole responsibilities in taking care of our health.

WTF are you talking about?

Doctors are in business. Many patients have no frame of reference for evaluating the quality of care they're receiving.

Any business that can't stand on its record and word of mouth by consumers, including medical business, which causes so much unreported injury with impunity, should be reviewed publicly by those who've used its services.

MCF wrote: Seeing clearly

MCF wrote:

Seeing clearly bogus, planted reviews make up most of the doctor ratings, I can't even figure out why ratemds continues to exist. Same reason I do not trust Angie's List for medical or any other rating group, except at Angie's List, they actually take the initiative of sending your reviews WITH your name to any company or professional you rate on their site. So all the negatives come down and only glowing reports stand after the doctor/seller sends a threatening or nasty correspondence.

Hi MCF

Like you said, the planted reviews are CLEARLY bogus. I have faith that most people can weed out the false good and bad ratings. For that reason I find this site useful.

Homerite's situation provides the perfect example of how effective Ratemds can be for the consumer.

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/3196906/Dr-David+E.-Nelson-Homer-AK.html

It’s not a perfect system, but it does work, and it is definitely better than nothing in my opinion.

Is that true Angie’s List will send your review with your name????? I am canceling my membership if that is the case. I didn’t use my real name when I signed up, but that is just so wrong. Wait, never mind. I had to use my real name. Puzzled

All I see on this site, for

All I see on this site, for the most part, is those 5555 reviews that use the "tell" language, most of the time. Even when I sent on clearly fake reviews about docs I had local knowledge of, I'm pretty sure the mods left the reviews up.

I told the Angie's List phone person to end my subscription right then and there. She kept saying "your review is not anonymous." When I asked why a very informative and negative review of a doc I had seen, hated, but was still considering using was no longer on the site, she told me that everyone reviewed gets a letter informing them of the review and I believe she told me the reviewer's info was provided "was not kept anonymous."

So this means those with the most to hide, and the biggest bullies can clearly maintain the cleanest review histories there. Clearly, Angie's List is making sure they have no legal exposure and maximizes that of their paid subscribers, leaving them out there to twist in the wind.

Call them up and ask them, they don't like to tell you, but I was able to pull it out of her.

'Tis a shame that RateMD

'Tis a shame that RateMD caved to doctor pressure. My family doc found the negative reviews very helpful for him. I and many other reviewers on this list had commented about his office staff's atrocious behavior. I told him he should check his reviews, which he did, then fired his staff. He is a great doc, but his staff drove off many patients and nearly drove our family away. Another review I posted on this site for a different doctor (who was lousy, interventionist and you weren't leaving her office without chits for unnecessary prescriptions, tests, and expensive diagnostic work) demanded that my review be removed and that I be banned from the site. She is dreadful and hides behind the canned glowing reviews her husband posted on this site. The same negative reviews of her are posted on several private list-serves and bulletin boards, but it's a shame that those reviews aren't available for everyone.

Garden freak wrote: 'Tis a

Garden freak wrote:

'Tis a shame that RateMD caved to doctor pressure. My family doc found the negative reviews very helpful for him. I and many other reviewers on this list had commented about his office staff's atrocious behavior. I told him he should check his reviews, which he did, then fired his staff. He is a great doc, but his staff drove off many patients and nearly drove our family away. Another review I posted on this site for a different doctor (who was lousy, interventionist and you weren't leaving her office without chits for unnecessary prescriptions, tests, and expensive diagnostic work) demanded that my review be removed and that I be banned from the site. She is dreadful and hides behind the canned glowing reviews her husband posted on this site. The same negative reviews of her are posted on several private list-serves and bulletin boards, but it's a shame that those reviews aren't available for everyone.

Who says that RateMDs caves to doctor pressure?

MCF wrote: All I see on this

MCF wrote:

All I see on this site, for the most part, is those 5555 reviews that use the "tell" language, most of the time. Even when I sent on clearly fake reviews about docs I had local knowledge of, I'm pretty sure the mods left the reviews up.

I told the Angie's List phone person to end my subscription right then and there. She kept saying "your review is not anonymous." When I asked why a very informative and negative review of a doc I had seen, hated, but was still considering using was no longer on the site, she told me that everyone reviewed gets a letter informing them of the review and I believe she told me the reviewer's info was provided "was not kept anonymous."

So this means those with the most to hide, and the biggest bullies can clearly maintain the cleanest review histories there. Clearly, Angie's List is making sure they have no legal exposure and maximizes that of their paid subscribers, leaving them out there to twist in the wind.

Call them up and ask them, they don't like to tell you, but I was able to pull it out of her.

Thanks MCF, that is good to know.

I just went to check my previous reviews at Angie’s List and apparently there was only one doctor I rated; he got an A, our pediatrician. He was amazing, and I attribute my three kids getting along so well due to his advice. He also caught a mistake another doctor in his office made, called us immediately, rectified the situation, along with holding the other doctor accountable. He was the most incredible doctor I have ever encountered.

I don’t recall if I rated any doctors negatively. If I did they are not listed in my account under “My ratings”.

I didn’t call, but I did send a message to Angie’s List asking those questions: if they send a copy of our ratings with our name to the business and if requested will they delete a negative rating?

I rarely have had negative experiences with doctors and if I do it is usually because they are an arrogant a$$. I generally don’t feel a need to rate them; I just don’t go back.

When someone’s physical body has been damaged or even worse a death has occurred because of a doctor’s incompetence that is another story. That is carried with the patient and family for the rest of their life. It would be very difficult to see that doctor posting obvious positive reviews undermining the patient’s negative experience.

I would be extremely angry too.

If a physician's practice

If a physician's practice methods are good enough to withstand a few bad comments it shouldn't bother them to know a few patients have had bad experiences. However, since the third leading cause of death, NOW, is medicalmals and over treatment American physicians need to clean up. Accidents used to be the third leading cause of death but now its bad medicine, greedy doctors, and a corrupt monitoring system. Medical Boards favor physicians.

I had the same issue almost a

I had the same issue almost a year ago, and a very nasty moderator accused me of double posting and removed my account.IMHO this is a reason why this site has taken a nose dive. They accused me of posting twice about the same doctor and it was untrue. They told me it was same address. Well guess what, it was my sister who died, that posted about him,(I had not idea she did that until after she died) and I used her laptop and also wrote the same thing. You can no longer trust this site to check to see if a doctor is up to snuff. I don't know who drove this useful site into the ground, but it is a dam shame:(

Gagal, I don't think Angie's

Gagal, I don't think Angie's List removes the review at the doc's request, so I'd be interested to hear how they respond.

What I think happens is that once notified, the doctor threatens the reviewer and the removal comes at the reviewer's request.

The case I was looking for was a very serious one; ended up that an office procedure on a toddler ended up with the kid in the ER and I think critical care.

Seriously, in the situation

Seriously, in the situation you describe, you cannot fault them for thinking it was the same poster, can you? Or at least inquiring about it?

AMEN to all of that.

AMEN to all of that.

Absolutely, I certainly could

Absolutely, I certainly could understand,someone questioning, but the moderator, was nasty, rude and kept accusing me of something I swore I never did. This unfortunately was not the first time, and I had ratings removed from legit posts. For this reason IMHO Rate MD'S is no more a reliable place.

MCF wrote: Gagal, I don't

MCF wrote:

Gagal, I don't think Angie's List removes the review at the doc's request, so I'd be interested to hear how they respond.

What I think happens is that once notified, the doctor threatens the reviewer and the removal comes at the reviewer's request.

The case I was looking for was a very serious one; ended up that an office procedure on a toddler ended up with the kid in the ER and I think critical care.

I sent you their response in a PM.

You were correct. They do send the member's name and address to the service provider, but do not remove ratings.

They do remove ratings after

They do remove ratings after the doctor bullies the patient who posted it, that's got to be what happened in the case I noticed.

elaine001 wrote: Absolutely,

elaine001 wrote:

Absolutely, I certainly could understand,someone questioning, but the moderator, was nasty, rude and kept accusing me of something I swore I never did. This unfortunately was not the first time, and I had ratings removed from legit posts. For this reason IMHO Rate MD'S is no more a reliable place.

My apologies for someone being rude to you. We get so many spammers on the site, sometimes we forget that the system makes mistakes.

John

I have also noticed that this

I have also noticed that this RateMD's are removing bad ratings from doctors that are posted here. I know I have not only read these bad ratings I have also made them and when I come back here years later they have been removed WHY OH WHY would you remove the info that patients have come here to share. I doubt anyone does this for the good of their health? If I had read these bad ratings about doctors and there are so many of them then I could have at least known they have been crappy doctors to others as well. Instead I come here and see only GREAT reviews from doctors I know personally are pretty bad. If anyone is removing these bad posts then they are doing everyone that comes here a diservice . Please leave the bad reviews on these boards so people can make up their own minds and not have it made up for them. This comment is not directed at Smileys only people that are responsible for this.

mouse007 wrote: I have also

mouse007 wrote:

I have also noticed that this RateMD's are removing bad ratings from doctors that are posted here. I know I have not only read these bad ratings I have also made them and when I come back here years later they have been removed WHY OH WHY would you remove the info that patients have come here to share. I doubt anyone does this for the good of their health? If I had read these bad ratings about doctors and there are so many of them then I could have at least known they have been crappy doctors to others as well. Instead I come here and see only GREAT reviews from doctors I know personally are pretty bad. If anyone is removing these bad posts then they are doing everyone that comes here a diservice . Please leave the bad reviews on these boards so people can make up their own minds and not have it made up for them. This comment is not directed at Smileys only people that are responsible for this.

We have spam filters that remove some ratings automatically. If a single rater rates the same doctor multiple times, whether it be positively or negatively, the ratings usually get removed. In most cases, there is no human intervention; it's the computer deciding what to do.

John

Hi There, That happened to me

Hi There,

That happened to me as well. In fact there were 3 or 4 negative reviews about my own physician, one of them mine, also removed. John I can understand Spam, well a bit, but I told that moderator to check me out, I am innocent. But instead she continued to accuse and demean me, taking away my profile and making me do a new one. So how can we trust this any more?????? Like Mouse007, I looked to this site for honest and trustworthy ratings, and all that has diminished now.

I have recently responded to

I have recently responded to a rating of a doctor that I had previously rated. This posting referred to the loss of life of an infant in the birth canal. The first time I responded to the eighth rating out of nine for this doctor the response stayed briefly - then disappeared. Yesterday I again responded to the same rating. The response did not post, and yes, I was logged in. Why are my responses to a rating not posting???

Additional note: I urged the

Additional note: I urged the poster to start a formal complaint process; first with the insurance carrier, second with the California State Medical Board, and third with the hospital review board. This was NOT spam. Again, why did my response to a rating about my doctor not post??

This is what I have been

This is what I have been saying for a long time, since before I was accused by, I think her name was Katherine, a moderator, of double posting. The more I tried to explain the more she kept accusing me,becoming belligerent,and angry, while I remained calm so this WAS a person. I have never done anything wrong, and I don't mind using my real name, I told her. My status was removed and I was forced to sign up again. This was happening a lot back then as well,(ratings being removed) and this is when Rate MDS had just started. If you look at my profile and status, I think it says I have been a member a year or so...NOT true. John I have received your apology, but it was not you who did it,so it is not helping all the others who have seen the same fate.With all due respect, for this one time amazing and helpful site,nothing changed!!! Honest and truthful ratings were removed like these people are saying from years ago. We were the ones supporting your site, telling others to trust it, and now IMHO, that is all gone:(

Moderator: Explain to us how

Moderator: Explain to us how to use the subscribe to thread/page, and where to locate it. I went to the page containing the rating that I posted - there are now nine (9) ratings for the same doctor. Two (2) times I have attempted to respond to another patient's rating on the same doctor. Twice my response has not posted, and twice I have not found the "Subscribe" option. Please explain how to post a response AND subscribe.

Why not just link to the

Why not just link to the original thread? Its right here. http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/57184

I do.

I do.

If my comment is removed,

If my comment is removed, I'll just have to send to someone with a higher pay-grade than the mods, and report the mods as well.
It's not what you know, it's who you know ! Not happy to say the least, sounds like CBC needs to do a story on this.

Notahappy Customer wrote: If

Notahappy Customer wrote:

If my comment is removed, I'll just have to send to someone with a higher pay-grade than the mods, and report the mods as well.

Oh look, a threat. Those always work real well on me. Not.

Notahappy Customer wrote:

It's not what you know, it's who you know ! Not happy to say the least, sounds like CBC needs to do a story on this.

You know, I would be asking what it is that has you so upset but there is that whole threat thing staring me in the face....

See how effective threats are?

Hi John, You can't apologize

Hi John,
You can't apologize for what someone else did, but thanks anyway. BTW I was just browsing my area doctors, and I once again saw a doctor that had many bad ratings (not by me, I have never seen him, but I had heard about him) only 1 bad review remained?? The same with my doctor, there were many bad reviews, now gone. These reviews were not done at the same time they were months, years apart, now all gone. Now John can you see why people are upset? Some handle it better then others, and some are so upset when they have been wronged by a doctor and then to have their ratings removed. You started this valuable site for so many, and with it you must have anticipated what would happen, and people needed to be weeded out. That said, when I received my email of the last poster, I said holy crap, now that was a little childish of a response, and found out it was the same one who took my status away, Katherine, the one who was so rude and accusatory, without listening to the facts. That is why John, people get upset. This was a place people could look to be warned or find a good doctor. There is one doctor on here from my area, that is on your best doctors list. This man is pushing 90, and has lost his memory, just saying. Maybe if possible you could take the bull by the horn, and put people in place that are not so quick to judge and not to listen. Warmest regards, Elaine

It would be useful consumer

It would be useful consumer information to know which doctors are bullying their bad reviews off of rating sites including RateMDs.

Who are they? Or have they silenced reviewers with legal bludgeoning?

I see need for a different hall of shame - a list of physicians who have cowed patients and websites into removing legitimate reviews.

One physician rated on this

One physician rated on this site has recently had six reviews removed. That doctor's ratings are still not great - with an average of 2.9 and 25 reviews, but some very important information for prospective patients has been removed. How frequently does this happen, and why?

Linda

John please look at my review

John please look at my review 5/3/13. This was posted by a person who had never seen me. Ratemds took the review down-but it 'stuck' up due to comments-and it was based on no information. Please take it down. Best, Robert Yoho MD

*AMEN*! I noticed this too,I

*AMEN*! I noticed this too,I had (a very justified) bad review of Dr.Bonnie Schacter on here posted several years ago,where I explained how cold and detatched she is and that her medical staff aren't nice people either and that is why I left her in 2008 after seeing her only out of conveience since she's just across my street,and my review was on here for about two years and then was gone! And a year after my bad review of this doctor,another former patient of hers said the exact same things about her being cold and detatched,and that her medical staff were Rude,Rude,and she said she left because of this doctor and her staff.Well her review is also gone!

Also, I wonder since doctors and medical staff can also be members on here,are they allowed to delete these bad reviews of themselves and their medical staff?

If patients have a strong

If patients have a strong dislike,or hatred of their doctors,it's because of *VERY JUSTIFIED* reasons,like they did bad medical things or gave bad medical advice,or they are nasty,uncaring doctors!

I have had quite a few nasty,and or cold detatched women & a few men doctors,and there are also a lot of either nasty,or cold and uncaring women nurses,and medical assistants,and they all have *NO* business even going into the medical profession! They should become prision guards and wardens instead!Prisoners don't need or deserve kind caring people!

No, I know from my own and

No, I know from my own and other people's real bad experiences with many doctors,that most of these reviews are *NOT* "bogus"! You have obviously been one of the lucky ones that you didn't have these bad experiences with doctors!

Also, I'm really surprised that these very comments and topic complaining about Rate MD's removing members posts,has not itself yet been removed!

I'm new to this site, having

I'm new to this site, having registered specifically to comment on this thread. There has been some discussion regarding anonymity when posting reviews of doctors. I do believe that people should be anonymous in these forums, since there may be issues of confidentiality with respect to the public knowing the names of actual patients of certain doctors (and being able to identify the ailments being treated).

However, if someone posts a negative review of a doctor, how can the doctor expect to respond to the review if there is no way for the doctor to know who the complainant is? The ability to "face your accuser" and provide a second side to the story is severely limited without that knowledge.

Now, having just created an account here, there was not sufficient information requested by RateMDs to be able to identify me. So, those who feel like their anonymity will be compromised by posting here apparently have nothing to fear. I think RateMDs should request at least a person's last name when registering, so that the REAL identification information could be requested by MDs who sought to respond to reviews.

This is definitely happening

This is definitely happening - and is already eroding both the usefulness and ethical standing of the ratemds.com site. I have put up a genuine rating (polite, blah blah...) - it stays for a few weeks or months - then it vanishes. Meanwhile all the odd positive same-day "advertorial" reviews remain. Ratemds has to stop this - especially when dealing with reviews by members. At least email us ti discuss the review before deleting it. It's just not good enough.

You have to understand two

You have to understand two things about sites like this:

The people who own these sites or even the moderators (I am not either) are worried a doctor could see the reviews and sue them and even the poster for slander.

Plus the person who is posting about the doctor could think he/she is a bad doctor whereas someone else could think of this doctor as Gods gift to the world. I dont think anyone should post bad reviews about a doctor or anyone else.

I have been to both good and bad doctors but I would never post anything about the bad doctors or even name them if I did.

And they are getting stricter because now everyone reads everything on line, nothing is safe and yes the poster could be taken to court for slander.

Lover454, I certainly hope u

Lover454, I certainly hope u have nothing to do with the running of the ratemds site or it may as well be closed now. You are simply wrong - posters that put up one honest post about a doctor they have actually seen are at minimal risk of a libel suit. Show me one case where this has happened? The cases that do come up involve multiple postings, postings by friends, family etc - or they are outrageous (eg. The dr cut my leg off). What is yr interest in the site and why are u here when u are implicitly saying the site is of no real use?

I dont have anything to do

I dont have anything to do with the ratings.

You are living in a dream world if you think that posters cannot get sued. Because yes a person can get sued for posting bad reviews. If I was a doctor and someone that I treated posted a bad review about me and it was costing me patients (who liked the way I was treating them or preventing me from getting new patients) I would sue the pants off the poster.

You are not sending Private Emails on this site to people you became friends with - you are posting the review so the world can see it. This is slander plain and simple.

DebateLover, I did not say

DebateLover, I did not say posters can't be sued. But an honest, single review does not constitute slander. As I asked, show me even one legal case where this has occurred (let alone been successfully taken to trial).

Wow,I was "polite" beyond

Puzzled Wow,I was "polite" beyond belief describing how my doctor failed to perform 8 of ten follow ups (his goals, lost tests, failed to recall me for abnormal paps, failed to follow up on abnormal chest xrays showing growths , refused to refer me to specialists when he was baffled by my symptoms , ignored my reports, failed to treat my serious illnesses, and failed to examine on two occasions presenting to his office with what HE described as "cardiac" symptoms. AND overtreatme for for 3 yrs+ with thyroid meds that have left me with high bp, high choilesterol and now cardiac arythmias from his negligence. My comments are under review. Next step, complaint to the College, and seeking a lawyer.

Yes a single review can be

Yes a single review can be considered slander. The doctor does not care if there is one or 100 posting bad reviews. A bad review is a bad review even if it is one. ANd the site might be required to release info on the poster to the doctor's lawyers.

For example: lets say you are a doctor and I post negative things about you. However, most of your patients like you but my post might/could hinder you from getting more patients or even losing some of the ones that still use you because my post about how bad I think you are is now ingrained in these peoples minds. You would sue me for slander.

Again a bad review is a bad review whether even if it is one review.

Sounds like you've had a long

Sounds like you've had a long journey Hypothyroid. I'd suggest u keep an eye on yr review - even once approved unfortunately that may not be the end of it. There's a chance (going on my own experience) that it could disappear down the track - and even though u r a ratemds member u will not be notified. I stand by my view that this is not the right way for the ratemds site to go about business. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Debatelover, to be slander it

Debatelover, to be slander it has to be untrue (and generally not just a matter of opinion). There is no way a single honest review is slander - show me the case and I'll change my mind - but u r simply incorrect. U may want to start be looking up slander in the dictionary (noting written material is usually referred to as libel).

So post as many negative

So post as many negative things about a doctor and see if you get sued. I would never ever post anything bad about any doctor. Again you are living in a dream world if you think you cannot be sued for slander/libel for even one bad review.

Ratemds would not get serious about this deleting bad reviews if they werent worried about getting sued.

No I am not incorrect you are just living in a dream world.

Juliesmith9999

Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Lover454, I certainly hope u have nothing to do with the running of the ratemds site or it may as well be closed now. You are simply wrong - posters that put up one honest post about a doctor they have actually seen are at minimal risk of a libel suit.

Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Debatelover, to be slander it has to be untrue (and generally not just a matter of opinion). There is no way a single honest review is slander - show me the case and I'll change my mind - but u r simply incorrect. U may want to start be looking up slander in the dictionary (noting written material is usually referred to as libel).

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Site administration will provide the details pertaining to a review, including IP address, upon receipt of a court order.

It is libel, not slander, which should be the concern of anyone posting a defamatory statement. The difference goes further than simply the form of transmission.

In some jurisdictions, a statement, even if true, can constitute libel (Quebec, Minnesota, just to name two) where the libel is malicious. In Canada, malicious libel has been prosecuted criminally.

RateMDs enjoys "safe harbour" protection under US Title 41 Communications Decency Act Section 230(c). Generally, it can't be held liable for a poster's comments. Barrett vs. Rosenthal, extended this protection to those who forward posts containing litigious comments.

lover454 wrote: Ratemds would

lover454 wrote:

Ratemds would not get serious about this deleting bad reviews if they werent worried about getting sued.

As I wrote previously, RateMDs enjoys the safe harbour provisions of the CDA.

The vast majority of review deletions are due either to their simply being multiple posts from a single IP address or not appearing to be based on personal experience.

Deletions include both good and bad reviews provided either by doctor reputation management firms or angry patients and competitors.

AdamAustin wrote: Well, this

AdamAustin wrote:

Well, this is a very good step because it is not good to insult anyone publicly.

You're right.

Patients need a way to speak up and be heard without having to insult anyone publicly.

When our healthcare system learns to do that properly, we will have a healthy, caring system. We will be able to see mistakes as "learning opportunities".

Until then patients risk being sued for slander or libel if they speak up. They risk physical, mental and emotional harm. It's an unhealthy system, in my opinion.

The system supports "insulting" patients by not listening to their concerns; by driving them to silence; by taking away their power.

There should be a law against that.

I concur. A past employee of

I concur. A past employee of a doctor that I rated was allowed access to medical records from his office and leaked information from a patient chart, which she believed to be mine, on the internet. Her statement read like a script and the details were not the type that one normally commits to memory. This is a H.I.P.A.A. violation.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

It is not I who is twisting words, Katherine. Read the first two sentences what you quoted of my post. I am clearly writing about legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here, not about lawyers who approached John, with or without court order.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

It is not I who is twisting words, Katherine. Read the first two sentences what you quoted of my post. I am clearly writing about legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here, not about lawyers who approached John, with or without court order.

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

Katherine, If indeed you have

Katherine, If indeed you have only ever had to release a single IP address then that is excellent - and it's important that ratemds users knows this info. I agree with what juliesmith has said - posters who are actual patients and put up a single polite honest review of their experience have very little to fear. Users need to know this. The site will lose value and standing if users become scared by hearsay or if negative ratings are unduly deleted by ratemds. And for what it's worth I think this site provides an incredibly important public service.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

It is not I who is twisting words, Katherine. Read the first two sentences what you quoted of my post. I am clearly writing about legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here, not about lawyers who approached John, with or without court order.

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I think most know about the

I think most know about the Dr Soto case, and much of the commentary at the time suggested the libel suit attracted much more negative attention to the Dr than any negative comment did. Good doctors work hard to satusfy patients, bad drs spend a lot of cash trying to save an image that may well be suffering from a growing number of unhappy patients. There's also a few cases where patients won anti-slapp lawsuits and had their costs paid. A real win for consumers wgen thus happens.

The people on here who agreed

The people on here who agreed with me thank you. For those people who say libel/slander cannot happen you are living in a dream world. It doesnt matter whether or not what you wrote is true it is a question of this doctor(s) seeing the horrible things written about them on line. ANd yes they will sue you if you write bad things about them and they should. I would sue if someone was writing bad things about me (and no I am not in the medical field).

And I agree also that we the posters are not going to know about every law suit that happens from the bad reviews given on here. But trust me I am sure there are many. Again dont live in a dream world and think that you can post awful things about a doctor. ANd yes the owners/moderators on these sites are going to protect their website and delete the bad reviews.

Write the doctor a letter telling them what they did to you that was bad.

And again you may think the doctor is bad but other people might think he/she is gods gift to the world.

Again you dont like the doctor dont use them

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

It is not I who is twisting words, Katherine. Read the first two sentences what you quoted of my post. I am clearly writing about legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here, not about lawyers who approached John, with or without court order.

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

There have been many successful legal actions by practitioners against patients. I doubt that you are advised of every action taken by a doctor against a poster.

It is not difficult to obtain a court order for an IP address. Both Canadian and American courts will issue orders on the base of a 'libel of its face'. I doubt that you send lawyers with court orders packing.

You are twisting my words, Mic. Its not an attractive trait. Please don't engage in it.

It is not I who is twisting words, Katherine. Read the first two sentences what you quoted of my post. I am clearly writing about legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here, not about lawyers who approached John, with or without court order.

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

CCH is Commerce Clearing House. They publish topical law reports for lawyers and accountants, as well as other users. These reporters are loose leaf ring binders, one for every conceivable area of law. As statutes, regulations, judgments, etc., are published, they are reproduced in these books (a single change in one sentence may cause twenty pages to be recreated due to pagination), weekly or monthly.

Some reporters are based on reporting the current law by topic rather than by statute, such as torts. Others are purely case law reporters. Had you searched on something like "CCH torts", you would have seen a slew of reporters and discussion forums attached to the various reporters at sites such as cch.com, cch.ca, cch.au, etc. The content of CCH volumes is not available publicly; it is by subscription only.

Canadian courts hearing tort and criminal actions do not require IP address evidence in verifying the identity of an author of a libel, so not receiving a court order for subscriber information does not negate the existence of a case based partially on any one doctor rating website, be that RateMDs or another.

To suggest that it does would be folly, akin to trying to prove a negative hypothesis.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

CCH is Commerce Clearing House. They publish topical law reports for lawyers and accountants, as well as other users. These reporters are loose leaf ring binders, one for every conceivable area of law. As statutes, regulations, judgments, etc., are published, they are reproduced in these books (a single change in one sentence may cause twenty pages to be recreated due to pagination), weekly or monthly.

CCH doesn't concern itself with the ins and outs of libel and slander except where it might relate to discrimination and employment law. Their focus is on business in general and accounting in particular.

Quote:

Some reporters are based on reporting the current law by topic rather than by statute, such as torts. Others are purely case law reporters. Had you searched on something like "CCH torts", you would have seen a slew of reporters and discussion forums attached to the various reporters at sites such as cch.com, cch.ca, cch.au, etc. The content of CCH volumes is not available publicly; it is by subscription only.

Fortunately there is an excellent law library not far from where I live. They might not have the specific volumes that I need to verify your claim, but I'm sure I can get them through inter library loan.

Of course, I need to know which volumes to look in. This is your cue to tell me.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Canadian courts hearing tort and criminal actions do not require IP address evidence in verifying the identity of an author of a libel, so not receiving a court order for subscriber information does not negate the existence of a case based partially on any one doctor rating website, be that RateMDs or another.

To suggest that it does would be folly, akin to trying to prove a negative hypothesis.

But wait, you said that there have been MANY successful legal actions initiated by doctors (or practitioners) against patients who posted HERE.

Prove it.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

CCH is Commerce Clearing House. They publish topical law reports for lawyers and accountants, as well as other users. These reporters are loose leaf ring binders, one for every conceivable area of law. As statutes, regulations, judgments, etc., are published, they are reproduced in these books (a single change in one sentence may cause twenty pages to be recreated due to pagination), weekly or monthly.

CCH doesn't concern itself with the ins and outs of libel and slander except where it might relate to discrimination and employment law. Their focus is on business in general and accounting in particular.

Quote:

Some reporters are based on reporting the current law by topic rather than by statute, such as torts. Others are purely case law reporters. Had you searched on something like "CCH torts", you would have seen a slew of reporters and discussion forums attached to the various reporters at sites such as cch.com, cch.ca, cch.au, etc. The content of CCH volumes is not available publicly; it is by subscription only.

Fortunately there is an excellent law library not far from where I live. They might not have the specific volumes that I need to verify your claim, but I'm sure I can get them through inter library loan.

Of course, I need to know which volumes to look in. This is your cue to tell me.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Canadian courts hearing tort and criminal actions do not require IP address evidence in verifying the identity of an author of a libel, so not receiving a court order for subscriber information does not negate the existence of a case based partially on any one doctor rating website, be that RateMDs or another.

To suggest that it does would be folly, akin to trying to prove a negative hypothesis.

But wait, you said that there have been MANY successful legal actions initiated by doctors (or practitioners) against patients who posted HERE.

Prove it.

Katherine,

CCH is not exclusively restricted to business, but that should not matter, anyway. Tort law is not the sole purvue of business. Alongside CCH (previously "Commerce Clearing House" in the US), there is also Lexis-Nexus, Martindale's, Martin's, and others. Typically, a reporter will cover one or more statutes, breaking each section down to a quote, followed by an explanation in simple English and references to case law, legal procedures, submission, forms and procedures, pertinent to the section, spanning several pages. CCH also produces reporters on cases of wide interest by precedent. I doubt that you're going to be able to get a CCH volume on any sort of library loan, personal or inter-library. They are regarded as reference material, need to have their loose leaf pages updated as frequently as weekly, and cannot be photocopied.

You can look through CCH's Australian Torts, Australian & New Zealand Insurance Reporter, Australian Tort Personal Injury Health and Medical Law Tracker (online), Canadian Insurance Law Reporter, Tort Law in Canada, or Ontario Accident Benefit Case Summaries. Those are the reporters referenced as containing the full detail on those cases cited in my monthly subscription.

CNN and BBC can hardly be depended upon to report a physician suing a patient over a libelous comment on a ratings site.

I'm not about to search the ratings or feedbacks on RateMDs to find lawsuits. Just off the top of my head, I could cite Foda (one doc suing a group of others), Casses, Arora (technically, a lawsuit threat), Soto, and that dentist who countersued a patient, citing libel, and won. I know of a couple of practitioners who have gone so far as to sue and also obtain restraining orders.

On the basis of two million ratings, do you really think there wouldn't be a few disgruntled doctors and dentists suing?

I would like just ONE case

I would like just ONE case mentioned by someone where a poster has been an actual patient, has written a single, honest review and has been successfully sued for libel (or even granted an order for an IP address). Soto case had a multi-poster that also used family and friends to post, the dentist claim was against a claim of "murder", a recent case in Australua was where a competitor was making false negative postings. Fair enough these may be open to libel claims. But nobody can name even one case where an honest single post has been successfully sued for libel. Mic, instead of all the rubbish re CCH which any law student would roll their eyes at, just name one single successful case. Should be easy going on all u have said.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

I'm not about to search the ratings or feedbacks on RateMDs to find lawsuits. Just off the top of my head, I could cite Foda (one doc suing a group of others), Casses, Arora (technically, a lawsuit threat), Soto, and that dentist who countersued a patient, citing libel, and won. I know of a couple of practitioners who have gone so far as to sue and also obtain restraining orders.

The doctor that I complained about did not threaten a lawsuit. However, the nurse working for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario did threaten me with libel. Katherine was very kind to help me remove all posts as the nurse's lawyer demanded. White Coat, Black Art refused to remove the post I had made there as they said what I had written could not be considered libel.

The problem that I see, is that patients may not have all the details of their case and may innocently write something which is not 100% correct and therefore patients do need to be careful - even when they complain to the College.

Including the patient's voice in healthcare is necessary for patient safety. And, regardless of whether or not the patient is 100% right, 100% wrong, or somewhere in between, it's not good for patients' mental health not be heard. Patients can end up looking like "nuts", when it is actually the system that is "nuts", in my opinion.

To take away our voice here is to disempower us, and that is not a good thing.

Mic - how much is that subscription?

I still cannot understand the

I still cannot understand the people on here who keep saying "Well give me a case that was successful based on reviews on these type of websites". Honestly people the owners of this site (or others like this one) are not going to release info regarding the reviews posted on here that was successful, it is not legal to do so. And the person who was sued will not come on this site or others like this and say "Oh yes I was sued for libel/slander and I lost and the doctor won"

Grow up. DO NOT POST ANY NEGATIVE REVIEWS ON A DOCTOR, ETC. WRITE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU BUT LEAVE OUT THE NAMES.

I never post the name of the doctor that did me wrong, I just post what happened to me when I saw this particular doctor, but I never mention the names.

The internet is no longer private - everyone googles themselves to see what is posted about them, and doctors and other people in other professions do the same.

Doctors, lawyers, business people are out to make money and they want to know what is being said about them and if it is really a bad review they will investigate and sue where needed. DO NOT KID YOURSELF.

Again grow up and I never post doctors names just what happened to me.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

CCH is Commerce Clearing House. They publish topical law reports for lawyers and accountants, as well as other users. These reporters are loose leaf ring binders, one for every conceivable area of law. As statutes, regulations, judgments, etc., are published, they are reproduced in these books (a single change in one sentence may cause twenty pages to be recreated due to pagination), weekly or monthly.

CCH doesn't concern itself with the ins and outs of libel and slander except where it might relate to discrimination and employment law. Their focus is on business in general and accounting in particular.

Quote:

Some reporters are based on reporting the current law by topic rather than by statute, such as torts. Others are purely case law reporters. Had you searched on something like "CCH torts", you would have seen a slew of reporters and discussion forums attached to the various reporters at sites such as cch.com, cch.ca, cch.au, etc. The content of CCH volumes is not available publicly; it is by subscription only.

Fortunately there is an excellent law library not far from where I live. They might not have the specific volumes that I need to verify your claim, but I'm sure I can get them through inter library loan.

Of course, I need to know which volumes to look in. This is your cue to tell me.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Canadian courts hearing tort and criminal actions do not require IP address evidence in verifying the identity of an author of a libel, so not receiving a court order for subscriber information does not negate the existence of a case based partially on any one doctor rating website, be that RateMDs or another.

To suggest that it does would be folly, akin to trying to prove a negative hypothesis.

But wait, you said that there have been MANY successful legal actions initiated by doctors (or practitioners) against patients who posted HERE.

Prove it.

Katherine,

CCH is not exclusively restricted to business, but that should not matter, anyway. Tort law is not the sole purvue of business. Alongside CCH (previously "Commerce Clearing House" in the US), there is also Lexis-Nexus, Martindale's, Martin's, and others. Typically, a reporter will cover one or more statutes, breaking each section down to a quote, followed by an explanation in simple English and references to case law, legal procedures, submission, forms and procedures, pertinent to the section, spanning several pages. CCH also produces reporters on cases of wide interest by precedent. I doubt that you're going to be able to get a CCH volume on any sort of library loan, personal or inter-library. They are regarded as reference material, need to have their loose leaf pages updated as frequently as weekly, and cannot be photocopied.

You clearly don't know how ILL works.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

You can look through CCH's Australian Torts, Australian & New Zealand Insurance Reporter, Australian Tort Personal Injury Health and Medical Law Tracker (online), Canadian Insurance Law Reporter, Tort Law in Canada, or Ontario Accident Benefit Case Summaries. Those are the reporters referenced as containing the full detail on those cases cited in my monthly subscription.

First I want you to tell me what cases were cited. Then I will know what specifically to look for. This may come as a surprise to you but I have this thing called a "life".

Quote:

CNN and BBC can hardly be depended upon to report a physician suing a patient over a libelous comment on a ratings site.

Granted, but you said you had heard about the cases through "CCH, general news sources, and google alerts". CNN and BBC are general news sources and between them they pretty much cover what's going on in the world. In general.

Quote:

I'm not about to search the ratings or feedbacks on RateMDs to find lawsuits. Just off the top of my head, I could cite Foda (one doc suing a group of others), Casses, Arora (technically, a lawsuit threat), Soto, and that dentist who countersued a patient, citing libel, and won. I know of a couple of practitioners who have gone so far as to sue and also obtain restraining orders.

On the basis of two million ratings, do you really think there wouldn't be a few disgruntled doctors and dentists suing?

But you said that there had been "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here". which implies that you knew all about them. Or that you could at least give me a general idea of when it happened and who was involved and the circumstances surrounding the "successful legal action".

Casses -- not successful (http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/40682#comment-185043)
Foda -- that's the case I referred to earlier. The site was subpoena'd twice. We won one; lost one. (http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/44850)
Arora -- Wisher, not the doctor, started that "action".
Soto -- The doctor did initiate legal action, and the patient backed down and the case was dropped. It was a successful action of sorts. There is a lot more I would like to say about that case but I really can't.

I think I must have missed coverage of the dentist. Link?

So you have cited TWO, maybe THREE successful legal initiated by doctors against patients. That is far from the "MANY" that you claimed to have known about.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Katherine wrote:

And you know about these "legal actions" how?

You're kidding, right? CCH, not to mention general news sources, Google alerts, etc.

I have RateMDs related Google Alerts delivered to my inbox as they happen.

I read CNN.com & BBC.co.uk almost every day. Between those two sites I think I stay up to date on news at home and around the world.

I've never heard of CCH so I googled the acronym and came up with nothing relevant. So I googled "CCH, news" (without the quotes). Again, nothing relevant to what we've been talking about. So I googled "CCH, RateMDs" (again, no quotes). Which yielded even less. Still, nothing about any "legal actions initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

But its possible that I might be missing something. So please, educate me. Tell me more about the "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here".

CCH is Commerce Clearing House. They publish topical law reports for lawyers and accountants, as well as other users. These reporters are loose leaf ring binders, one for every conceivable area of law. As statutes, regulations, judgments, etc., are published, they are reproduced in these books (a single change in one sentence may cause twenty pages to be recreated due to pagination), weekly or monthly.

CCH doesn't concern itself with the ins and outs of libel and slander except where it might relate to discrimination and employment law. Their focus is on business in general and accounting in particular.

Quote:

Some reporters are based on reporting the current law by topic rather than by statute, such as torts. Others are purely case law reporters. Had you searched on something like "CCH torts", you would have seen a slew of reporters and discussion forums attached to the various reporters at sites such as cch.com, cch.ca, cch.au, etc. The content of CCH volumes is not available publicly; it is by subscription only.

Fortunately there is an excellent law library not far from where I live. They might not have the specific volumes that I need to verify your claim, but I'm sure I can get them through inter library loan.

Of course, I need to know which volumes to look in. This is your cue to tell me.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Canadian courts hearing tort and criminal actions do not require IP address evidence in verifying the identity of an author of a libel, so not receiving a court order for subscriber information does not negate the existence of a case based partially on any one doctor rating website, be that RateMDs or another.

To suggest that it does would be folly, akin to trying to prove a negative hypothesis.

But wait, you said that there have been MANY successful legal actions initiated by doctors (or practitioners) against patients who posted HERE.

Prove it.

Katherine,

CCH is not exclusively restricted to business, but that should not matter, anyway. Tort law is not the sole purvue of business. Alongside CCH (previously "Commerce Clearing House" in the US), there is also Lexis-Nexus, Martindale's, Martin's, and others. Typically, a reporter will cover one or more statutes, breaking each section down to a quote, followed by an explanation in simple English and references to case law, legal procedures, submission, forms and procedures, pertinent to the section, spanning several pages. CCH also produces reporters on cases of wide interest by precedent. I doubt that you're going to be able to get a CCH volume on any sort of library loan, personal or inter-library. They are regarded as reference material, need to have their loose leaf pages updated as frequently as weekly, and cannot be photocopied.

You clearly don't know how ILL works.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

You can look through CCH's Australian Torts, Australian & New Zealand Insurance Reporter, Australian Tort Personal Injury Health and Medical Law Tracker (online), Canadian Insurance Law Reporter, Tort Law in Canada, or Ontario Accident Benefit Case Summaries. Those are the reporters referenced as containing the full detail on those cases cited in my monthly subscription.

First I want you to tell me what cases were cited. Then I will know what specifically to look for. This may come as a surprise to you but I have this thing called a "life".

Quote:

CNN and BBC can hardly be depended upon to report a physician suing a patient over a libelous comment on a ratings site.

Granted, but you said you had heard about the cases through "CCH, general news sources, and google alerts". CNN and BBC are general news sources and between them they pretty much cover what's going on in the world. In general.

Quote:

I'm not about to search the ratings or feedbacks on RateMDs to find lawsuits. Just off the top of my head, I could cite Foda (one doc suing a group of others), Casses, Arora (technically, a lawsuit threat), Soto, and that dentist who countersued a patient, citing libel, and won. I know of a couple of practitioners who have gone so far as to sue and also obtain restraining orders.

On the basis of two million ratings, do you really think there wouldn't be a few disgruntled doctors and dentists suing?

But you said that there had been "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here". which implies that you knew all about them. Or that you could at least give me a general idea of when it happened and who was involved and the circumstances surrounding the "successful legal action".

Casses -- not successful (http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/40682#comment-185043)
Foda -- that's the case I referred to earlier. The site was subpoena'd twice. We won one; lost one. (http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/44850)
Arora -- Wisher, not the doctor, started that "action".
Soto -- The doctor did initiate legal action, and the patient backed down and the case was dropped. It was a successful action of sorts. There is a lot more I would like to say about that case but I really can't.

I think I must have missed coverage of the dentist. Link?

So you have cited TWO, maybe THREE successful legal initiated by doctors against patients. That is far from the "MANY" that you claimed to have known about.

Casses - He was successful in separate legal actions in stopping *two* raters from posting further detail about an action taken against him which had earlier resulted in a $1 million settlement.

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Soto - It was not a "successful legal action of sorts"; it was successful, period. The definition does not preclude threatening a lawsuit, garnisheeing before judgment, etc. "Dr. Armando Soto on Wednesday said he dropped the defamation lawsuit against his former client after she agreed to retract or edit the anonymous comments she and her family posted on RateMDs.com and similar online ratings sites." (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-20/health/os-orlando-doctor-drops-online-defamation-20120620_1_online-ratings-comments-ratemds-com)

Foda - He has been successful in Alberta, where his lawsuit was filed. The actions in Ontario and California were only procedural. The action he lost against RateMDs was a simple attempt by his lawyers to launch a fishing expedition on one poster, not something that would likely be supported by the courts. The other one, however, was specific as to the posts and within the criteria for successfully obtaining a court order for subscriber information. Those actions were not actions against patients.

Sagun Tuli, MD, sued Gary Votour a couple of months ago for alleged libel on a website, though I don't know which one. However, it simply goes to my initial point regarding patients needing to be careful about how and what they write.

There is one who has been chased into court for libelous comments on RateMDs. The site was not involved simply because no poster information was sought, the patient having admitted making them. That action is adjourned sine die with a TRO issued against the patient, meaning that the physician has been successful in having the court arrest the patient's activities while the case hangs over the patient's head. For obvious reasons, I am not going to publish the names of any of the parties here.

Four here, and one on another ratings site is what I can recall off the top of my head. The dentist's action concluded sometime in the last six months, perhaps more recent.

There is enough of this happening across all ratings websites that a university has commenced a project tracking the cases.

CNN and BBC combined don't track one-half of what's happening worldwide. The BBC no longer has much of a budget and is using affiliate networks to source correspondents' reporting. Live overseas for a few years, and you'll appreciate what I'm saying.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Mic,

This is not correct.

Can I sue you??? Puzzled Smiling

Double post, sorry.

Double post, sorry. Tongue

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Mic,

This is not correct.

Can I sue you??? Puzzled Smiling

Janice, in a telephone conversation, I heard you tell me that you were worried that if you dropped your lawsuit, Arora might turn around and sue you.

Sure, you can sue me. You can blow the proceeds at Walmart.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
wishandaprayer wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Mic,

This is not correct.

Can I sue you??? Puzzled Smiling

Janice, in a telephone conversation, I heard you tell me that you were worried that if you dropped your lawsuit, Arora might turn around and sue you.

Well, that's true. At one point, I was considering dropping my lawsuit because I didn't have a lawyer, because when it's just the loss of vision in one eye, it's difficult to get a lawyer. But, you had said that even if what I was posting was true, I was still risking being sued for libel. So, I wanted a promise that he would not try to sue me for libel if I dropped my lawsuit, but I couldn't get that promise - but he didn't actually try to sue me for libel. So - basically to protect myself from being threatened with libel - I had to continue with my lawsuit.

Also, the nurse from the College was not a senior administrator; she was an Investigator, and although nurses should not be abusive, she doesn't have to worry about that - because there was no nurse/client relationship.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Sure, you can sue me. You can blow the proceeds at Walmart.

I prefer to shop at "Winners". Eye-wink

Just kidding - I like Reitman's and the Bay and Laura Petites and regular Laura. Smiling

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Although there have been several proposed legal actions, to date only one has been remotely successful. A subpoena was issued for a single IP address. The next year the lawyer came back for more and was sent packing. Just like the other litigants.

Believe me, I do keep track of this sort of thing.

Katherine wrote:

But you said that there had been "many successful legal actions" that were "initiated by doctors against patients who posted here". which implies that you knew all about them. Or that you could at least give me a general idea of when it happened and who was involved and the circumstances surrounding the "successful legal action".

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Casses - He was successful ......

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit ...

Soto - It was not a "successful legal action of sorts"; it was successful, period...

Foda - He has been successful in Alberta...

Sagun Tuli, MD, sued Gary Votour a couple of months ago ......

Take a closer look at what I said, Katherine. I didn't write "many", I wrote "Not many, but a few") as cited by you at http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/61935/222613).

You go on to write that only one such legal action has been "remotely successful", followed by my having cited several (in support of "not many, but a few"), just off the top of my head.

I think my first point has been made.

My second point, that one cannot prove a negative hypothesis, was made by someone else long ago. It can be rather difficult to state that something has not happened with a minimum frequency ("a few") in the absence of having sampled the entire (statistical) population (not just a segment).

In the future, I'd suggest contacting the Canadian and American Trial Lawyer Associations for statistics and case citations. They might be helpful. In Canada, there's also the notorious CMPA.

The whole point of my initial post was that patients make comments and they go unnoticed until some doctor and his lawyer see it and act on it against the patient. Such actions do not always involve the ratings site, be it RateMDs, or another site. Most actions don't even make the news.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Lover454, I certainly hope u have nothing to do with the running of the ratemds site or it may as well be closed now. You are simply wrong - posters that put up one honest post about a doctor they have actually seen are at minimal risk of a libel suit.

Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Debatelover, to be slander it has to be untrue (and generally not just a matter of opinion). There is no way a single honest review is slander - show me the case and I'll change my mind - but u r simply incorrect. U may want to start be looking up slander in the dictionary (noting written material is usually referred to as libel).

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Site administration will provide the details pertaining to a review, including IP address, upon receipt of a court order.

It is libel, not slander, which should be the concern of anyone posting a defamatory statement. The difference goes further than simply the form of transmission.

In some jurisdictions, a statement, even if true, can constitute libel (Quebec, Minnesota, just to name two) where the libel is malicious. In Canada, malicious libel has been prosecuted criminally.

RateMDs enjoys "safe harbour" protection under US Title 41 Communications Decency Act Section 230(c). Generally, it can't be held liable for a poster's comments. Barrett vs. Rosenthal, extended this protection to those who forward posts containing litigious comments.

Here's your original post Mic.

Kat's not that "Katty", lol. Eye-wink

I declare Mic the winner of this debate. Smiling

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote: In

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

In some jurisdictions, a statement, even if true, can constitute libel (Quebec, Minnesota, just to name two) where the libel is malicious. In Canada, malicious libel has been prosecuted criminally.

So - legally, if Twain was a doctor who thought "So What?" to himself when assessing and treating his patients, this is something which the law actually encourages. Twain can just go on charging for services which he doesn't bother to actually do, or do well, and if his patients suffered injury regarding this, "So What?".

Twain's patients likely wouldn't be able to sue, because of the "notorious" CMPA. This might be a good thing, because if you're foolish enough to sue, you open yourself up to further physical, mental, emotional and financial harm, but patients should not be silenced when they have concerns about patient safety.

Patients should not risk going to jail, should they?

Have I misunderstood? Puzzled

That Twain doctor sure had us all fooled. Big smile Eye-wink

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:

Patients should not risk going to jail, should they?

Have I misunderstood? Puzzled

I wouldn't worry too much, Janice.

Malicious libel is usually the product of a campaign to ensure that a person's reputation is lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community. It goes past just presenting facts. It attempts to colour the wrong committed with language and omission of facts.

A simple example might be someone going to great length to advertise that another has been convicted of murder and is, thus, a murderer, omitting that the case is under review by an appeals court.

Attempting to ruin a person's reputation could also constitute malicious libel.

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Casses - He was successful in separate legal actions in stopping *two* raters from posting further detail about an action taken against him which had earlier resulted in a $1 million settlement.

You've claimed this before, but as one of the parties explained here, its simply not true.

Quote:

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Wisher refuted this one all by herself. Thanks Wish.

Quote:

Soto - It was not a "successful legal action of sorts"; it was successful, period. The definition does not preclude threatening a lawsuit, garnisheeing before judgment, etc. "Dr. Armando Soto on Wednesday said he dropped the defamation lawsuit against his former client after she agreed to retract or edit the anonymous comments she and her family posted on RateMDs.com and similar online ratings sites." (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-20/health/os-orlando-doctor-drops-online-defamation-20120620_1_online-ratings-comments-ratemds-com)]

I already granted you this one. But its good to see that you do know how to provide sources.

Quote:

Foda - He has been successful in Alberta, where his lawsuit was filed. The actions in Ontario and California were only procedural. The action he lost against RateMDs was a simple attempt by his lawyers to launch a fishing expedition on one poster, not something that would likely be supported by the courts. The other one, however, was specific as to the posts and within the criteria for successfully obtaining a court order for subscriber information. Those actions were not actions against patients.

Fine. Whatever. We're still only at two.

Quote:

Sagun Tuli, MD, sued Gary Votour a couple of months ago for alleged libel on a website, though I don't know which one. However, it simply goes to my initial point regarding patients needing to be careful about how and what they write.

If it wasn't RateMDs then this definitely doesn't count.

Quote:

There is one who has been chased into court for libelous comments on RateMDs. The site was not involved simply because no poster information was sought, the patient having admitted making them. That action is adjourned sine die with a TRO issued against the patient, meaning that the physician has been successful in having the court arrest the patient's activities while the case hangs over the patient's head. For obvious reasons, I am not going to publish the names of any of the parties here.

And this definitely doesn't count because, quite frankly, I don't believe you.

Four here, and one on another ratings site is what I can recall off the top of my head. The dentist's action concluded sometime in the last six months, perhaps more recent.

There is enough of this happening across all ratings websites that a university has commenced a project tracking the cases.

CNN and BBC combined don't track one-half of what's happening worldwide. The BBC no longer has much of a budget and is using affiliate networks to source correspondents' reporting. Live overseas for a few years, and you'll appreciate what I'm saying.

You're the one who said that you found out about these cases by following general news sources. I was just pointing out that I read general news sources as well.

wishandaprayer

wishandaprayer wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Lover454, I certainly hope u have nothing to do with the running of the ratemds site or it may as well be closed now. You are simply wrong - posters that put up one honest post about a doctor they have actually seen are at minimal risk of a libel suit.

Juliesmith9999 wrote:

Debatelover, to be slander it has to be untrue (and generally not just a matter of opinion). There is no way a single honest review is slander - show me the case and I'll change my mind - but u r simply incorrect. U may want to start be looking up slander in the dictionary (noting written material is usually referred to as libel).

Since RateMDs began in 2006, there have been successful actions by doctors for libelous statements posted here. Not many, but a few. It wasn't long ago that a dentist succeeded against a patient who had posted a defamatory review on RateMDs. Two years ago, a surgeon proceeded against a poster after he wrote that the surgeon murdered his mother.

Site administration will provide the details pertaining to a review, including IP address, upon receipt of a court order.

It is libel, not slander, which should be the concern of anyone posting a defamatory statement. The difference goes further than simply the form of transmission.

In some jurisdictions, a statement, even if true, can constitute libel (Quebec, Minnesota, just to name two) where the libel is malicious. In Canada, malicious libel has been prosecuted criminally.

RateMDs enjoys "safe harbour" protection under US Title 41 Communications Decency Act Section 230(c). Generally, it can't be held liable for a poster's comments. Barrett vs. Rosenthal, extended this protection to those who forward posts containing litigious comments.

Here's your original post Mic.

Kat's not that "Katty", lol. Eye-wink

I declare Mic the winner of this debate. Smiling

And here is the "many successful legal actions" post.

http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/61935#comment-222614

Although I'm sure Mic will try and tell me that I was misinterpreting this as well.

Katherine

Katherine wrote:
MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Casses - He was successful in separate legal actions in stopping *two* raters from posting further detail about an action taken against him which had earlier resulted in a $1 million settlement.

You've claimed this before, but as one of the parties explained here, its simply not true.

Quote:

Arora - Wisher started a tort action for personal injury. Arora threatened a lawsuit for libel based on her posts, stopping her from further mentioning his name in association with her case. Second to that was a similar threat by a senior administrator in the CNO against Wisher.

Wisher refuted this one all by herself. Thanks Wish.

Quote:

Soto - It was not a "successful legal action of sorts"; it was successful, period. The definition does not preclude threatening a lawsuit, garnisheeing before judgment, etc. "Dr. Armando Soto on Wednesday said he dropped the defamation lawsuit against his former client after she agreed to retract or edit the anonymous comments she and her family posted on RateMDs.com and similar online ratings sites." (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-20/health/os-orlando-doctor-drops-online-defamation-20120620_1_online-ratings-comments-ratemds-com)]

I already granted you this one. But its good to see that you do know how to provide sources.

Quote:

Foda - He has been successful in Alberta, where his lawsuit was filed. The actions in Ontario and California were only procedural. The action he lost against RateMDs was a simple attempt by his lawyers to launch a fishing expedition on one poster, not something that would likely be supported by the courts. The other one, however, was specific as to the posts and within the criteria for successfully obtaining a court order for subscriber information. Those actions were not actions against patients.

Fine. Whatever. We're still only at two.

Quote:

Sagun Tuli, MD, sued Gary Votour a couple of months ago for alleged libel on a website, though I don't know which one. However, it simply goes to my initial point regarding patients needing to be careful about how and what they write.

If it wasn't RateMDs then this definitely doesn't count.

Quote:

There is one who has been chased into court for libelous comments on RateMDs. The site was not involved simply because no poster information was sought, the patient having admitted making them. That action is adjourned sine die with a TRO issued against the patient, meaning that the physician has been successful in having the court arrest the patient's activities while the case hangs over the patient's head. For obvious reasons, I am not going to publish the names of any of the parties here.

And this definitely doesn't count because, quite frankly, I don't believe you.

Four here, and one on another ratings site is what I can recall off the top of my head. The dentist's action concluded sometime in the last six months, perhaps more recent.

There is enough of this happening across all ratings websites that a university has commenced a project tracking the cases.

CNN and BBC combined don't track one-half of what's happening worldwide. The BBC no longer has much of a budget and is using affiliate networks to source correspondents' reporting. Live overseas for a few years, and you'll appreciate what I'm saying.

You're the one who said that you found out about these cases by following general news sources. I was just pointing out that I read general news sources as well.

Regarding Casses, LarrytheCitizen is not credible. That was stated by his sister, Sandy, time and again, and made pretty clear by himself in his Youtube videos. One could say that Larry is not well.

All the documentation pertaining to Casses was provided by Sandy and posted by either herself or myself here, with exception to the settlement document, which is subject to a gag order. However, that was a legal action for medical malpractice, not libel, the subject of my initial point. When Sandy referred to a link pointing to details of the settlement, Casses' lawyers enforced the California court gag order, claiming that it pertained not only to the settlement document, but also to simple reference to the public record of the court order governing the settlement. Sandy then ceased any further reference to the settlement.

Larry was not included in the settlement because he refused to participate with the Sandy's siblings choice of lawyers, thus he claims no settlement, no gag order, no concern regarding Casses' lawyers.

Two edits were made removing comments which could have been cited as libelous, one at the poster's request when Casses began taking legal action with respect to the comments here, and a second item before I believe he had discovered it, as I mentioned previously. When Casses' libel action commenced (claiming no proof of the specific outcome of a settlement, in spite of public court documents referencing the malpractice action), the poster's comments site-wide were reviewed and some removed. Only upon compliance by the poster did Casses stop further action. That is a successful legal action.

Casses is still fighting patients in BC Supreme Court (Quesnel, Vancouver, New Westminster, and elsewhere). The last time I was informed of his malpractice actions (a few years ago), he had won two, lost two, with two more before the courts, and more being considered. I'm not going through the registries looking up his current actions.

Read Wisher's comments again, carefully. She conveyed to me that she was worried about a threat of legal action for libel.

You've twisting my words around, Kat. It's not very becoming. My reference to finding some cases included all sources, primarily law reporters and relevant court sources.

Casses, Soto, Foda, and the CNO nurse investigator who threatened Wisher with legal action for libel, requiring Wisher to remove posts. I still stand by Arora as well, based on what Wisher told me.

It really matters not whether you choose to believe or not the issue of an ongoing legal action between a physician and a patient involving libel and a TRO. John is aware of the circumstances of the comments and recently removed the latest comments breaching the court's order against the patient, together with the patient's posting privileges on RateMDs (at least under the relevant user name).

Excluding Arora, that numbers four here and one on another site, still a relevant source of information as an example in cautioning raters in making their comments.

I'm still waiting to hear

I'm still waiting to hear even one case that convinces me - despite pages of comments. Soto does not count - news reports noted that their were multiple posters including family or friends. The dentist case doesn't count either - (claiming "murder" is a bit over the top and even if true should be brought to the attention of authorities). Can anybody quote just one successful libel case where a SINGLE, HONEST negative review from an ACTUAL PATIENT has been the cause? In Australia for interest, NSW Fair Trading is looking at sites that unduly remove negative reviews and/or allow fake positive reviews. This is the direction things should be headed. And re news, if I were ever sued for libel I'd go to the press ASAP. This is what keeps the doctors under control - commentators on Soto suggest his libel action caused himself around 10 times the damage of the original post.

Katherine wrote: And here is

Katherine wrote:

And here is the "many successful legal actions" post.

http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/61935#comment-222614

Although I'm sure Mic will try and tell me that I was misinterpreting this as well.

That is not a misinterpretation by you, but a generalization by me. In that comment I have intentionally not restricted my comments either to hear or to libel actions. Non sequitur, Katherine.

plasticnut wrote: I'm still

plasticnut wrote:

I'm still waiting to hear even one case that convinces me - despite pages of comments. Soto does not count - news reports noted that their were multiple posters including family or friends. The dentist case doesn't count either - (claiming "murder" is a bit over the top and even if true should be brought to the attention of authorities). Can anybody quote just one successful libel case where a SINGLE, HONEST negative review from an ACTUAL PATIENT has been the cause? In Australia for interest, NSW Fair Trading is looking at sites that unduly remove negative reviews and/or allow fake positive reviews. This is the direction things should be headed. And re news, if I were ever sued for libel I'd go to the press ASAP. This is what keeps the doctors under control - commentators on Soto suggest his libel action caused himself around 10 times the damage of the original post.

That's a pretty definite statement negating "the dentist" without a named reference.

Dr. Armando Soto dropped the defamation lawsuit against his former client after she agreed to retract or edit the anonymous comments she and her family posted on RateMDs.com and similar online ratings sites. She had refused to do so prior to his suing. While the objective of a lawsuit is the seeking of damages in many cases, it can also be performance of some action. Soto obtained a satisfactory action by the patient, retraction, which is evidently preferred to monies. That constitutes a successful legal action.

Hi all. I was wondering how

Hi all. I was wondering how ratemds is going with looking into at least alerting members via email if/ when one of their ratings is deleted? As members, ratemds has our e-mail addresses, so it should be relatively easy to do electronically. There seems to be quite a few cases where genuine, polite negative reviews go up, stay for a few weeks, and then disappear. I think as a courtesy members could at least be alerted, even if no reason is given as to why the rating was deleted. As John pointed out, it may be due to new algorithms, but members should at least know so they can follow up. The entire medical system is already heavily weighed towards doctors who are incredibly well-protected, and often also use fake positive reviews to further skew ratings.

A chart of Doctor Lawsuits

A chart of Doctor Lawsuits over Online Reviews by Patients (or their family members)
Updated February 4, 2013

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=historical

A comment about awards of attorneys fees for successful Anti_SLAPP Motions to Strike: These awards do not cover all costs associated with being sued. The patient is often disadvantaged by not being able to cover the costs of defense, which are often in the $50,000 to $100,000 range, against a wealthy physician, and thus may be coerced into removing a truthful review that would provide valuable information to other health care consumers.

You CAN be sued for posting truthful reviews, and defending yourself can be very taxing, financially, emotionally and physically. Consider public advocates such as Popehat, Electronic Freedom Foundation, Digital Media Law Project, and see if you have coverage under any insurance policies such as your homeowners, or any umbrella liability policy you could have.

Linda

That's a great post - thanks.

That's a great post - thanks. I think the list of cases should give posters a fair degree of comfort - the doctors have not had much success. The other point is that truly "bad" doctors are afraid of the publicity a lawsuit may bring. If there are a number of dissatisfied patients then these are often prompted by a suit to tell their story. Agree though re the stress etc a lawsuit can bring, and again, great post.

John- A very important review

John- A very important review I put up about a Toronto dermatologist who is prescribing strong steroids in a cream she compounds for the face without always disclosing was erased. I have multiple doctors reports to substantiate the life-altering damage I have to my skin due to this. Why was it taken down? I would like others not to be damaged.

It seems very convenient that

It seems very convenient that the 'computer' is deciding to remove the negative, non-duplicated comments. The doctor that I posted a negative comment to had many negative posts. I have just gone in to look at the comments and most of the ones that had been there, including my own, are gone. A friend of mine has had 2 bad experiences with this same doctor and I suggested she post her comments here but I think I'll tell her not to bother now since they will only be removed. And what is with only being able to see 7 reviews. I know that there have been many more ratings on the doctor I've referred to, but I can only see 7 of them.

debrocks wrote: It seems very

debrocks wrote:

It seems very convenient that the 'computer' is deciding to remove the negative, non-duplicated comments.

That's a fairly broad generalization. Was the rating actually removed or simply flagged? What reason were you given for the removal? Was it a duplicate rating of either an existing or deleted rating? Did you submit the rating from a publicly accessible computer, which may have been shared by another RateMDs user or using the same computer on a different connection? Did the rating contain libelous language such as "incompetent" without supporting documentation?

Pride is such a hard pill to

Pride is such a hard pill to swallow. Ratemds.com is a sham, a charade, and most certainly contrived. Attention chatroom moderator: It is MY health, and MY life; so of course it's personal; and much like personal problems; bad doctors do not cease to exist simply because we ignore, or omit the negative.

krose33 wrote: Pride is such

krose33 wrote:

Pride is such a hard pill to swallow. Ratemds.com is a sham, a charade, and most certainly contrived. Attention chatroom moderator: It is MY health, and MY life; so of course it's personal; and much like personal problems; bad doctors do not cease to exist simply because we ignore, or omit the negative.

Instead of posting a baseless generalization, perhaps citing a few examples might be constructive. Nothing is foolproof, and with over a million ratings, mistakes will be made.

Thank you so much for your

Thank you so much for your non-condescending, unsolicited advice. Yes MOTNS, mistakes are, have been, and always will be made...and this website is one of them. Am I wrong to believe that the purpose of a forum such as this, is to assist patients/comsumers in finding the best care possible for their health-related needs; based on actual patient testimony? Am I also wrong to believe that a network dedicated to helping patients/consumers should be open, transparent, and free of any biases? When RateMDs.com "flags," "reviews," or "deletes" any post; be it positive, or negative; for any reason; without even a hint, or explanation as to why; it completely looses all credibility as a reputable patient/comsumer review website; in my opinion. By silencing the voiceless, the powerless, and the helpless; i.e. the people who frequent their site; they dilute the truth. Patients/consumers want to trust that "big brother" isn't interfering with the outcome or results; skewing the data in any one particular direction.

I took the removal of a link

I took the removal of a link I posted for a doctor personally. If it wasn’t personal I would like an explanation as to the reason it was removed.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/04/28/uc-doctor-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-patients/
http://www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/sanctions/HGPYD38F0C4839C443DA904282011.pdf
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/kevess/

The first link was the only link I posted since the doctor actually admitted to having sex with patients, but said it was consensual. I thought that would be enough. In the time it took to look up my IP address the “administrator” could have researched the authenticity of the link. It took me less than a minute to find the other links on the doctor corroborating the article. If it was an automatic system which removed the link, the error could have been rectified since my post.

I believe there are major power/control issues, personal vendettas, “pride”, and a lack of basic common sense at play in the decision processes regarding removal of positive and negative ratings.

A good moderator is not one who appears to be “working hard” by removing ratings rather one who can sit back, evaluate and has the self control NOT to remove information unnecessarily, allowing users to speak their mind in a respectful manner and most importantly to educate patients.

krose33 wrote: Thank you so

krose33 wrote:

Thank you so much for your non-condescending, unsolicited advice. Yes MOTNS, mistakes are, have been, and always will be made...and this website is one of them. Am I wrong to believe that the purpose of a forum such as this, is to assist patients/comsumers in finding the best care possible for their health-related needs; based on actual patient testimony? Am I also wrong to believe that a network dedicated to helping patients/consumers should be open, transparent, and free of any biases? When RateMDs.com "flags," "reviews," or "deletes" any post; be it positive, or negative; for any reason; without even a hint, or explanation as to why; it completely looses all credibility as a reputable patient/comsumer review website; in my opinion. By silencing the voiceless, the powerless, and the helpless; i.e. the people who frequent their site; they dilute the truth. Patients/consumers want to trust that "big brother" isn't interfering with the outcome or results; skewing the data in any one particular direction.

I agree!

.

.

Calling doctors

Calling doctors "compassionless" when they are exhibiting all the telltale signs of a person who is sorely lacking in empathy, is not libel, or slander...it's truth...and most ego's cannot handle it.

My honest and truthful review

My honest and truthful review that had been on the site for a few years stayed until I updated it a few months ago with how much worse the office had gotten since my previous review. Now any trace of my review is gone with no explanation or anything. I will post a review for that Dr. again because nobody deserves to be treated the way I was and the way that office is run does a disservice to patients and the reputation of other Dr's in that specialty.

jondoe1984 wrote: When

jondoe1984 wrote:

When RateMDs.com "flags," "reviews," or "deletes" any post; be it positive, or negative; for any reason; without even a hint, or explanation as to why; it completely looses all credibility as a reputable patient/comsumer review website; in my opinion.

RateMDs was started by patients, for patients. John (http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2008/05/5_policy_politics03_5.html) has no special love for doctors.

Dozens of physician reviews are removed daily for various reasons, including duplicate IP and MAC addresses, duplicate user, libel, threats, etc. A very high percentage of the reviews have a fairly strong coefficient of correlation, making them credible. Of course, there will always be a percentage which are wrong, suspicious, etc.

RateMDs does not flag reviews; users do.

Hi Mic. I read the National

Hi Mic. I read the National Review May 2008 article in the link you provided. Do you know what happened in the Dr. Foda lawsuit? There's no mention of it on his ratings page www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/86367/Dr-Mohamed-Foda-Leduc-AB.html Thanks!

JWowHolycow wrote: Hi Mic. I

JWowHolycow wrote:

Hi Mic. I read the National Review May 2008 article in the link you provided. Do you know what happened in the Dr. Foda lawsuit? There's no mention of it on his ratings page www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/86367/Dr-Mohamed-Foda-Leduc-AB.html Thanks!

I'm sorry, I don't. He was fighting colleagues, not patients, if I recall correctly. Two medical staff joined RateMDs and began posting libel about him under, I think, one user name. When Foda got the court order for RateMDs to provide the IP address information, he discovered that it was one individual he suspected plus the one person he trusted alongside himself in court fight in Alberta. Quite the twist!

I think a good deal of information appears under Google.

Mic - please do not twist my

Mic - please do not twist my words. Some doctors have no love for patients. I do not lump all doctors together, and assume that they are all bad. That is the purpose of this site - to help patients weed out the bad. And I don't need to reference an article from 2008 to prove anything. I only need to read the alarming number of similar stories about a patient's honest testimony mysteriously vanishing for my "coefficient of correlation" - making this site, in my humble opinion, non-credible. I want to give you an idea of where I am coming from - I recently went to my E.R. and requested a survey form and was asked the question, "Was your experience positive?" My reply, "I would rather not comment." Her response, "Well, we do not give surveys unless you had a positive experience, otherwise I can give you my number and we can discuss your concerns." In other words, the signs proudly hanging all over the hospital, with the pretty bar graphs and pie charts, stating 86% patient satisfaction, were manipulated, falsified, skewed, altered, doctored(If I may?) - This is what I have NO love for Mic.

Amen to this post. gagal

Amen to this post.

gagal wrote:

I took the removal of a link I posted for a doctor personally. If it wasn’t personal I would like an explanation as to the reason it was removed.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/04/28/uc-doctor-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-patients/
http://www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/sanctions/HGPYD38F0C4839C443DA904282011.pdf
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/kevess/

The first link was the only link I posted since the doctor actually admitted to having sex with patients, but said it was consensual. I thought that would be enough. In the time it took to look up my IP address the “administrator” could have researched the authenticity of the link. It took me less than a minute to find the other links on the doctor corroborating the article. If it was an automatic system which removed the link, the error could have been rectified since my post.

I believe there are major power/control issues, personal vendettas, “pride”, and a lack of basic common sense at play in the decision processes regarding removal of positive and negative ratings.

A good moderator is not one who appears to be “working hard” by removing ratings rather one who can sit back, evaluate and has the self control NOT to remove information unnecessarily, allowing users to speak their mind in a respectful manner and most importantly to educate patients.

agree, few of my reviews was

agree, few of my reviews was deleted. so this site cant be trusted.

Not only was I not twisting

Not only was I not twisting your words, I was not writing about doctors, but about this site.

In finding such damning criticism to bring over the site, I'm surprised that you avail yourself of their forum to condemn the management. It`s unfortunate that you seem so uninformed regarding this site and its history. Logical fallacies don't exactly help your case, either.

You have a personal coefficient of correlation for the database on this site? That has to be a statistical first. Personal cumulative anecdotes have little place in ascertaining the statistical dependability of a database or the credibility of its framework.

Do you understand what causes reviews to be removed? One that few users think about, and which is becoming more commonplace with age, is secondary duplicate IP addresses. This can occur in a suburb where someone rates a popular family or ER physician who has been rated by someone else in the same community, both having the identical IP address due to both having logged in at the same Internet cafe, months or even years apart.

There are a number of reasons for removal of ratings, some of them seeming a little aggressive on the surface, but which, without, would result in a ratings database devoid of probable real experience and significantly corrupted with anecdotal commentary.

Whatever it was that you saw at the hospital may have been to small a sample from which to derive a reliable statistic, contained bias in the questions, but in any case was not neutral, as in undertaken by a third party. It's not even worth referencing in an argument. My reference to the piece about John Swap was to demonstrate that he is far from being a cheerleader for the medical profession, especially having fought off various attacks including DDoS and buyout attempts from the profession.

jondoe1984 wrote:

Mic - please do not twist my words. Some doctors have no love for patients. I do not lump all doctors together, and assume that they are all bad. That is the purpose of this site - to help patients weed out the bad. And I don't need to reference an article from 2008 to prove anything. I only need to read the alarming number of similar stories about a patient's honest testimony mysteriously vanishing for my "coefficient of correlation" - making this site, in my humble opinion, non-credible. I want to give you an idea of where I am coming from - I recently went to my E.R. and requested a survey form and was asked the question, "Was your experience positive?" My reply, "I would rather not comment." Her response, "Well, we do not give surveys unless you had a positive experience, otherwise I can give you my number and we can discuss your concerns." In other words, the signs proudly hanging all over the hospital, with the pretty bar graphs and pie charts, stating 86% patient satisfaction, were manipulated, falsified, skewed, altered, doctored(If I may?) - This is what I have NO love for Mic.

"John has no special love for

"John has no special love for doctors." - How is that NOT twisting my words? And please show me where I "condemned the management." I "avail" myself to this forum, Mic, to help others avoid the bulls#it - which you so clearly enjoy spewing and consuming. It's unfortunate that you have taken my criticism, and opinions about this website so personally. It's almost as if you have some sort of stock, investment, or not-so-hidden agenda. "Logical fallacies," or what I call common sense, is something that certain brains just cannot fathom.

Instead of arguing over my

Instead of arguing over my criticism, why don't you respond to the countless other postings about honest, negative, reviews being suddenly deleted? Why do you feel the need to single this disgruntled patient out? Have I touched a nerve Mic? RateMDs.com gives an orthopedic doctor I'm familiar with good ratings, so I'm sure you can trust him to correct your nerve issuses. And if he makes a mistake, you can always come on here and have your honest review about your experience removed.

jondoe1984 wrote: "John has

jondoe1984 wrote:

"John has no special love for doctors." - How is that NOT twisting my words?

For the simple reason that they are my words, not yours.

I understand perfectly how

I understand perfectly how this site removes reviews. I could give a $#it about statistics. You cannot omit personal experience when determining your health. Do you understand how to NOT talk down to people?

Yes - they were your words -

Yes - they were your words - congratulations Mic - you won the argument. What exactly did you mean by your statement? Show me specifically where I said that I have no special love for doctors?

jondoe1984 wrote: And please

jondoe1984 wrote:

And please show me where I "condemned the management."

Your statement regarding the site (developed by management) as being "non-credible". While it is not perfect, it is simply statistically valid, and that is not difficult to test.

jondoe1984 wrote:

I "avail" myself to this forum, Mic, to help others avoid the bulls#it - which you so clearly enjoy spewing and consuming. It's unfortunate that you have taken my criticism, and opinions about this website so personally. It's almost as if you have some sort of stock, investment, or not-so-hidden agenda. "Logical fallacies," or what I call common sense, is something that certain brains just cannot fathom.

Before you can begin dispensing help or advice to other forum users on subject matter germane to a forum, Jondoe, it's often helpful to have engaged in that forum for a little more than six days. If you had an inkling as to the history of the site, my interaction here, and with others, you'd realize just how silly your assertions are. If you are having difficulty fathoming logical fallacies, they are easy to google and include such concepts as "straw man" arguments.

Users are here to learn, and that includes listening to information presented as fact, as long as it is supported.

jondoe1984 wrote: Yes - they

jondoe1984 wrote:

Yes - they were your words - congratulations Mic - you won the argument. What exactly did you mean by your statement? Show me specifically where I said that I have no special love for doctors?

I didn't write that you said you had no love for doctors.

By reference, I wrote that John Swap had no love for doctors.

Wow - thank you so much for

Wow - thank you so much for educating me about how chatroom forums work. I had no idea that there were time restraints as to when a person was able to give their honest, humble, OPINION. There you go again being ever-so-condescending and pretentious. I don't think there's enough room for us ignorant peons and your magnificent, all-knowing, ego to fit in this forum. So I will gracefully bow in defeat to his majesty, and forever remain silent, until his holiness gives me permission to speak again.

jondoe1984 wrote: Wow - thank

jondoe1984 wrote:

Wow - thank you so much for educating me about how chatroom forums work. I had no idea that there were time restraints as to when a person was able to give their honest, humble, OPINION. There you go again being ever-so-condescending and pretentious. I don't think there's enough room for us ignorant peons and your magnificent, all-knowing, ego to fit in this forum. So I will gracefully bow in defeat to his majesty, and forever remain silent, until his holiness gives me permission to speak again.

Jondoe, I was quite willing to discuss with you ratings deviations, why things sometimes seem to disappear, etc., and all that you have done is to make statements about how the site lacks credibility with nothing to support the statement and somehow suggest that a perhaps informal survey in a hospital setting relates to a million rating database.

Perhaps if you took some time to read past threads where ratings have been discussed at length, with a good deal of argument, examples, and interaction by management with respect to specific cases, you'd gain a better idea of wherein problems continue to pervade. Then, you could mount some constructive criticism and perhaps join us in improving the system.

Chatroom? Someone mentioned the other day that it's been gone for a while.

I am humble enough to admit

I am humble enough to admit when mistakes are made, and I apologize for misreading your statement. I thought when you said, "John has no special love for doctors," that you were directing it towards me. I was wrong.

Can you just get over

Can you just get over yourself for one second?! I'm sorry I called it a "chatroom." I'm sorry that I take into consideration umpteen posts about how patient's reviews of doctors suddenly disappeared as factual evidence. And my story about my E.R. visit pertains to this discussion in that just because you see, or hear a statistic, it doesn't always mean that it's 100% accurate, non-biased, or altered in some way. You cannot conduct a neutral survey where you are only including positive responses. That is the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps you stop speaking

Perhaps you stop speaking down to the people you are trying to help and educate? And for the record, I did read each post in this forum first, before I decided to chime in.

jondoe1984 wrote: You cannot

jondoe1984 wrote:

You cannot conduct a neutral survey where you are only including positive responses. That is the point I was trying to make.

Of course, you can't. I wouldn't accept a survey conducted by the party served by it, though. RateMDs, however, was started by John Swapceinski, the developer of the well-known RateMyProfessor, and many other such sites (see http://www.ratingz.net). When I posted that article, it was to show Swap's interest in developing RateMDs.

Just FYI, and as to my agenda, I have a problem with "bad actors", regardless of their profession (see http://www.ratingz.net). That made the national news, three nights in a row.

Once again...instead of

Once again...instead of arguing over my criticism, why don't you respond to the countless other postings about reviews being suddenly deleted? Why do you feel the need to single this disgruntled patient out? Have I touched a nerve Mic? RateMDs.com gives an orthopedic doctor I'm familiar with good ratings, so I'm sure you can trust him to correct your nerve issuses. And if the good doctor makes a mistake, you can always come on here and have your honest review about your experience removed without explanation.

jondoe1984 on Thu, 05/29/2014

jondoe1984 on Thu, 05/29/2014 at 10:06 ET wrote:

Once again...instead of arguing over my criticism, why don't you respond to the countless other postings about reviews being suddenly deleted? Why do you feel the need to single this disgruntled patient out? Have I touched a nerve Mic? RateMDs.com gives an orthopedic doctor I'm familiar with good ratings, so I'm sure you can trust him to correct your nerve issuses. And if the good doctor makes a mistake, you can always come on here and have your honest review about your experience removed without explanation.

jondoe1984 on Thu, 05/29/2014 at 8:06 ET wrote:

Instead of arguing over my criticism, why don't you respond to the countless other postings about honest, negative, reviews being suddenly deleted? Why do you feel the need to single this disgruntled patient out? Have I touched a nerve Mic? RateMDs.com gives an orthopedic doctor I'm familiar with good ratings, so I'm sure you can trust him to correct your nerve issuses. And if he makes a mistake, you can always come on here and have your honest review about your experience removed.

Did you just re-post this, in furtherance of demanding an answer?

Commenting on a forum thread for the participation of all, doesn't constitute an answer directed at one user, and my comments, if you care to read them, were not directed that way, nor was I singling out anyone.

Jondoe, you would have to be on this forum much longer than a week and know before you'd have a chance of "touching a nerve", as you put it. You do not have to respond with ad hominem remarks. BTW, I think you have orthopaedic specialists confused with neurologists.

Not demanding anything my

Not demanding anything my friend. Just trying to make a point using some levity, wit, and sarcasm. And no confusion here mate. What if your orthopaedic "specialist" overlooks your previously unknown nerve problem, misdiagnosis and recommends that you have CTS surgery instead? What if an idiot like myself, had no idea that there could possibly be nerve damage in his neck, and it was the reason for his shooting pain, numbness, and loss of strength/mobility? What if he blindly trusted his orthopaedic "specialist" and decided to have CTS surgery instead of focusing on the real issue, which is and always was cervical spinal stenosis? Wouldn't you feel more confident that your orthopaedic "specialist" knew the difference between cervical spinal stenosis and CTS? When I said earlier that I could "recommend" an orthopedic doctor, I was being ironic. It's called a sense of humor. Try googling it.

jondoe1984 wrote: Not

jondoe1984 wrote:

Not demanding anything my friend. Just trying to make a point using some levity, wit, and sarcasm. And no confusion here mate. What if your orthopaedic "specialist" overlooks your previously unknown nerve problem, misdiagnosis and recommends that you have CTS surgery instead? What if an idiot like myself, had no idea that there could possibly be nerve damage in his neck, and it was the reason for his shooting pain, numbness, and loss of strength/mobility? What if he blindly trusted his orthopaedic "specialist" and decided to have CTS surgery instead of focusing on the real issue, which is and always was cervical spinal stenosis? Wouldn't you feel more confident that your orthopaedic "specialist" knew the difference between cervical spinal stenosis and CTS? When I said earlier that I could "recommend" an orthopedic doctor, I was being ironic. It's called a sense of humor. Try googling it.

Sorry I didn't recognize the humour. Personally, I'd have been happy if the surgeon who did operate on me had been more conversant with his own specialty. Smiling

MicOnTheNorthshore - I wanted

MicOnTheNorthshore - I wanted to apologize for my previous rantings. I was in a bad place, physically, and emotionally, and I let my emotions get the best of me. I am sorry.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.