By Kristin Billera
Your doctor may soon be asking you to waive your right to criticize him or her on the Internet. Medical Justice, a company that purports to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits and protect their reputations is encouraging doctors to preempt anonymous criticism from patients on blogs, rating websites, and forums. The organization is suggesting that doctors require their patients to sign agreements not to criticize the doctor on the Internet.
According to Dr. Jeffrey Segal, the company’s founder, who is quoted by the Associated Press, anonymous ratings of doctors often do little more than hurt the reputation of physicians, especially if they are more about the doctor’s demeanor than his medical expertise. Physicians are able to purchase a membership with Medical Justice, which includes the standardized waiver as well services which include regular searches of “rating web sites for compliance ” and notification to “sites to remove posts on member physicians.”
According to the Medical Justice website, the company is not advocating a true gag order, saying that these agreements leave patients free to “about their treatment with friends, family, other health professionals, hospitals, licensing boards, attorneys, civil court, and more…”
However, despite the fact that this is not a gag order that prevents all speech, it preemptively prevents enough speech to arouse concern. Medical Justice claims to protect doctors from libel and defamation, however, some of the comments cited for example in the Associated Press article are merely opinion about the doctor’s demeanor and proving libel would be problematic. How could it be proved as a matter of fact or not that a doctor is “arrogant?” It’s a matter of perception and suggesting that such comments are libelous can only be detrimental and could lead to ordinary citizens becoming tied up in litigation.
It’s not clear if such agreements would be upheld in the courts. According to the AP article, attorney and Northwestern University professor Jim Speta, who is an Internet law specialist said, “‘Courts might say the balance of power between doctors and patients is very uneven’ and that patients should be able to give feedback on their doctors’ performance.”
Also, this week, a Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that website owners did not have to disclose the identities of anonymous posters who made negative comments about local businesses on a forum. If other courts follow the Maryland court’s approach, doctors may not be able to find out who is behind anonymous negative comments, rendering the waivers useless.





4 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Justin Silverman
a related cmlp post:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/do-no-harm-dont-let-anyone-talk-about-you
March 9, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Denise Ouellet
Here’s another case where Comcast customers’ potentially libelous statements about Korbel, the champagne company. In this case, the judge is asking Comcast to notify the users that if they do not file a legal complaint, their identities will be revealed. If this becomes the trend, this could favor companies in these lawsuits because the users may not be able to afford to file a complaint or afford legal representation.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090305/ARTICLES/903040184/0/SPORTS10
March 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Justin Silverman
as far as comcast is concerned, i’d find another internet provider. i wish such businesses would take a stronger stance for the sake of their customers and the protection that cda 230 provides. companies such as comcast should not be putting their customers in such a difficult spot — file suit or we will call you out. i asked a former professor about why such internet providers or hosts are so quick to pull the plug and he responded with the following:
“While ISProviders and website hosts are protected from liability so long as they do not edit or censor content, the belief is that upon notification from an aggrieved party that defamation or invasion of privacy occurs, then the rules change. The standard becomes one of ordinary negligence and, as a result, questionable posts are taken down or deleted. The terms and conditions generally provide for such deletion for any reason or no reason.”
So, they are basically covering their ass, just in case. i think it’s just a matter of time before companies start marketing to bloggers, pitching a no-tell policy.
April 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Wikileaks Presents New Legal Questions « Media and Communications Law Society
[...] The website, Wikileaks, could lead to even more serious legal dilemmas concerning anonymity on the Internet than reviews of businesses or doctors. [...]