Online Physician Reviews

[Michael Scally MD]

Negative online reviews leave doctors with little recourse In the Courts
amednews: Negative online reviews leave doctors with little recourse :: Oct. 4, 2010 ... American Medical News

By AMY LYNN SORREL
Posted Oct. 4, 2010.

The Internet is rife with reviews about the latest restaurant and auto repair shop someone tried the week before -- or a visit to a doctor. But some physicians say they shouldn't be reviewed online the same way people judge how a filet mignon was cooked or how fast a tire was changed. And when it comes to negative reviews, doctors say they have more at stake than other businesses.

New York dermatologist Sumayah Jamal, MD, PhD, grappled with the issue after discovering what she called false characterizations of her practice on the review website Yelp.

"When it comes to physicians, people are very cautious, and it's not just a matter of taste. It's a matter of your health and your life," she said. "This is much more serious than a review of whether you like a chocolate chip cookie at a particular bakery. People put their lives in the hands of doctors, so reviews on the Internet have a tremendous impact on the public perception of your integrity."

Several legal roadblocks put physicians at a disadvantage, however, in defending against inappropriate online reviews and the websites that host the postings, experts say. With many websites rating physicians, the issue has garnered significant attention from the medical community.

It wasn't until Yelp called Dr. Jamal to ask her to advertise that she discovered her practice, Keris Dermatology, had been reviewed. "I wasn't even aware I had a listing," she said.

After noticing that many negative reviews of her practice were at the top of her business listing, while the positive ones were at the bottom, she expressed her concern to Yelp.

The company said it uses an automated filtering system. The methodology is designed to give more credibility to established reviewers to provide more trustworthy content and guard against fake reviews by malicious competitors or disgruntled employees. The company contends that the review system is not linked in any way to advertising sponsorships.

But Dr. Jamal said the postings give an unbalanced view.

In one negative review, for example, Dr. Jamal said a patient disagreed with her diagnosis, saying it was motivated by greed. Another patient complained that Dr. Jamal's laser surgery recommendation also was financially driven. A third patient criticized her hiring practices as racist.

"Some things can have nothing to do with your practice at all," she said.

The dermatologist then sought positive reviews from her patients to balance out the negative ones, only to see them get filtered as well.

Dr. Jamal found it difficult to combat what she said were opinions about care rather than facts based on medical standards. She also faced violating patient confidentiality rules if she tried to dispel online allegations. Further complicating matters, most online reviews are anonymous, making it difficult to defend against dubious attacks from false patients, she said.

"I don't think people's opinions should be suppressed, but it is very dangerous when you have people with no expertise reviewing doctors in such a way that you really do need medical expertise to be fair," she said.

Review sites should take some responsibility for their content, particularly if they cannot verify the veracity of a posting or a reviewer's identity, Dr. Jamal said.

Legal hurdles

But Internet sites contend that because they merely post comments, they are protected by the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. The legislation, which was intended to encourage development of the Internet, immunizes providers of an "interactive computer service" from liability for defamatory statements made by a third party through their websites.

Yelp recently argued successfully for such protections to a New York trial court. In a September decision, New York Supreme Court Judge Jane S. Solomon ruled that the federal statute barred a dentist from suing Yelp for defamation and deceptive business practices. The dentist alleged that the website selectively removed positive reviews of his practice after he asked the website to remove what he said was a false and defamatory anonymous review. Yelp denied any wrongdoing. The dentist is considering an appeal.

Solomon said in Reit v. Yelp that under the statute, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Congress granted such entities immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material "so long as the information was provided by another party."

But the federal law was not meant to protect websites that are actively involved in how the information on their site is presented publicly, said Gregory S. Weston, a lead attorney in a class-action lawsuit a group of California businesses filed in March against Yelp. The group alleges that the website manipulated placement of negative reviews and leveraged them to solicit ad money, in violation of state unfair competition laws. The case, which awaits class certification, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Online review sites "do say something, and they are not acting passively when they filter reviews or order them in a certain way," said Weston, of The Weston Firm in San Diego.

Yelp denied any wrongdoing, saying businesses cannot pay to move or remove reviews. The company stands by its review filter, which is "entirely automated to avoid human bias, and it affects both positive and negative reviews," Yelp's website says.

Still, federal law makes it difficult for doctors to sue for Internet defamation, said Donald Moy, chief legal counsel to the Medical Society of the State of New York. The society has been monitoring the issue and seeking legislative and regulatory oversight at state and national levels.

Because most reviews are anonymous, tracking the identity of a reviewer can prove difficult, Moy said. Although state laws generally allow defamation claims, "an opinion cannot be found to be defamatory. In order to be defamatory, the statement that causes injury must be false. However, an opinion can neither be proven to be true or false."

Constitutional issues may arise in trying to restrict online communication, said Alan J. Howard, a constitutional law professor at Saint Louis University School of Law. If a reviewer "says something that's wrong or you think is wrong, you can rebut it. Normally what the First Amendment requires is more speech, not regulation of speech."

Fighting back

With such hurdles, the American Medical Association continues to study the issue as online review sites and patient involvement evolve.

AMA policy calls for the investigation of publication of physician information on Internet websites, potential solutions to erroneous physician information posted online and the development of educational materials to help doctors identify legal options to protect them from targeted harassment. AMA policy supports the use of physician profiling to promote quality of care, so long as the methods used promote accuracy and transparency and give physicians a chance to respond to the results.

"Websites like Yelp are popular because they are accessible, not because of their accuracy," Weston said. Even if prospective patients don't go to such sites directly to research a doctor, a general Internet search often brings up such reviews, influencing a practice's business, he said. "And the amount of lost business [physicians] can suffer can be substantially higher than the restaurant that charges $10 for a meal."

Meanwhile, Dr. Jamal remains vigilant. With little legal recourse and the inability to afford such help, she has turned to other tools and found one in particular to be effective: simple communication with her patients.

In some cases, Dr. Jamal said patients gave enough details in reviews that she was able to discern their identities. In those instances, she confronted her patients to resolve their grievances, taking time to explain that her recommendations were consistent with standards of care.

Some of Dr. Jamal's patients agreed to take down their negative reviews, though not all were receptive.

She now spends several hours a week checking her Yelp listing and e-mail notifications of review postings.

"I'm not saying [patients] can't say anything bad about me. They can express their opinions to friends, family, colleagues ... But if there's an issue, talk to me," she said. "You don't have to go on the Internet and ruin the reputation of a business that takes decades to build."

 

[Michael Scally MD]

REIT v. YELP INC
Reit v Yelp!, Inc. (2010 NY Slip Op 20362)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1537656.html


Glenn REIT, D.D.S., Plaintiff,
v.
YELP!, INC. and John Doe, aka Michael S., Defendants.

No. 600555/2010.
-- September 02, 2010

Richard Raysman, Esq., of Holland & Knight, LLP, New York, for Plaintiff.
Janet L. Cullum, Esq., and Scott J. Pashman, Esq, of Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP, New York, for Defendants.

Plaintiff Glenn Reit, D.D.S. (Reit) is a dentist practicing on Third Avenue in Manhattan. He sues Yelp!, Inc. (Yelp), the owner and provider of the website Yelp.com, and a “John Doe” defendant, identified on Yelp.com as Michael S., for defamation, and he sues Yelp alone for deceptive acts and practices under General Business Law § 349 and § 350. By motion, he also seeks preliminary relief ordering Yelp to delete from Yelp.com all references to him and his dental practice.

A temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted pending decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Yelp then moved, under CPLR 3211(a)(7), to dismiss the causes of action pleaded against it on the ground that it is immune from liability under 47 USC § 230, the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996(CDA). The motions are decided as follows.

FACTS

Reit alleges that he and his dental practice have been defamed by Michael S., an anonymous poster on Yelp.com, an interactive website designed to allow the general public to write, post, and view reviews about businesses, including professional ones such as Reit's, as well as restaurants and other establishments. Yelp solicits and sells advertising on its website.

In May of 2009, Yelp.com contained a web page referencing Reit's practice that included ten positive reviews. On May 6, 2009, Michael S. posted a negative, and allegedly defamatory, review about Reit's practice, including statements that his office is “small,” “old” and “smelly,” and “the equipment is old and dirty.” Reit claims that the number of people who call for appointments has dropped from 10-15 per day to 4-5 per day as a result of this post.

Reit contacted Yelp in an effort to remove the post. Yelp refused. Instead, Reit claims that Yelp removed all the positive postings on Reit's Yelp.com page and retained only the Michael S. posting.1 Reit alleges upon information and belief that this procedure of removing positive reviews and highlighting negative ones is part of Yelp's business model, used as leverage to coerce businesses and professionals into paying for advertising on Yelp.com.

DISCUSSION

Yelp argues that as an internet computer service, as defined by the CDA, it is immune to liability. Reit counters that Yelp is an information content provider, which may be sued for defamation.

Section 230 of the CDA provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” (CDA § 230[c][1] ), and that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section” (id., § 230[e][3] ).

“Interactive computer service” is defined as “any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server ?” (CDA § 230[f][2] ). An “information content provider” is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other information computer service” (CDA § 230[f][3] ).

Through the CDA, Congress granted interactive computer services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party. Similarly, “lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions-such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content-are barred” (Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of New York, Inc., 68 AD3d 581 [1st dept, 2009], citing Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F3d 327, 330 [4th Cir1997], cert. denied 524 U.S. 937 [1998] ). However, an internet computer service is liable for its own speech, or when it “develops” information (Shiamili, 63 AD3d at 583).

While Reit admits that Yelp is an internet computer service, he maintains that the CDA does not immunize it from defamation here because its removal of posts was not editorial, but business related. Specifically, Reit argues that the selective removal of all of his positive reviews was more than the action of an editor “simply selecting material for publication.” This distinction, Reit argues, makes Yelp an internet content provider.

Shiamili is analogous to the present matter. In Shiamili, the plaintiff sued an interactive computer service for defamation based on information published on its website. The complaint alleged that the defendants “choose and administer content” that appears on the website. Shiamili argued that the defendants “engaged in a calculated effort to encourage, keep and promote bad' content on the Web site.” The First Department held that this allegation does not raise an inference that defendants were information content providers within the meaning of the CDA because “message board postings do not cease to be data provided by another information content provider merely because the construct and operation of the Web site might have some influence on the content of the postings” (Id., at 583).

Here, Yelp is an interactive computer service. The allegedly defamatory content was supplied by a third party information content provider and consisted of a message board posting. That Yelp allegedly uses “bad” posts in its marketing strategy does not change the nature of the posted data. Moreover, Yelp's selection of the posts it maintains on Yelp.com can be considered the selection of material for publication, an action “quintessentially related to a publisher's role” (Green v. America Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465, 471 [3rd Cir.], cert denied, 540 U.S. 877 [2003] ). Accordingly, Yelp may not be considered an internet content provider, so that Reit's defamation claims are barred by the CDA.

The CDA protects Yelp from liability for defamation, but does not contemplate protecting Yelp's usage of that speech as leverage in its business model. Therefore, Reit's fourth cause of action must be examined separately.

Reit alleges there that Yelp “provides deceptive terms on their [sic] website that encourages both business consumers/users and individual consumers/users of the site to believe that the reviews they consume are not manipulated by Yelp ?” (Complaint, ¶ 73), and that these acts constitute deceptive acts and practices in violation of General Business Law § 349 and § 350.

In this cause of action, Reit alleges, on information and belief, the following:

“Yelp solicits advertising from businesses listed on the Yelp website at a cost of $300 a month or more ?” (Complaint, ¶ 34);

“Yelp's sales force uses negative reviews on the website as leads for new advertising business” (Id., at ¶ 35);

“Yelp sales representatives orally tell business owners that if the business owner commits to pay for advertising, the Yelp sales representative will assist in deleting a number of troubling negative reviews ? if a business owner does not sign up for advertising, Yelp deletes positive reviews and retains negative reviews of that business owner” (Id., at ¶ 36);

“On Yelp's Business Owner's Guide'? Yelp states that We remove the guesswork by screening out reviews that are written by less established users. The process is entirely automated to avoid human bias' “ (Id., at ¶ 38);

“[T]he system is not entirely automated' and Yelp manipulates the reviews ?” (Id., at ¶ 38).

Reit argues that Yelp deceives the consumer public because it represents that its review pages are ordered, reviewed and removed by a computer algorithm, and not manipulated by people, and that this constitutes a materially misleading representation. In support of these assertions, he provides statements from other business owners who claim to have been manipulated as he described, and references class-action lawsuits against Yelp of which he is not a member. Notably, he does not allege that he was a victim of the conduct he complains about.

General Business Law (GBL) § 349(a) provides that “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful”. GBL § 350 covers false advertising, and the elements of this claim are identical to those for deceptive acts and practices under GBL 349 (see, Andre Strishak & Associates, P.C. v. Hewlett Packare Co., 300 A.D.2d 608 [2nd Dept, 2002] ). The statutes confer a private right of action to “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” (GBL § 349[h] ). A plaintiff need not be a consumer or someone standing in the shoes of a consumer to have an actionable claim (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 344 F.3d 211, 218 [2nd Cir. NY, 2003] ).

To plead a deceptive act or practice, a plaintiff must allege “(1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice (City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., 12 NY3d 616, 621 [2009] ). The deceptive conduct must be misleading to a reasonable consumer (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 314, 324 [2002] ), and the injury must be an actual injury, though not necessarily pecuniary (Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24 [2000] ).

Reit seems to contend that Yelp's alleged manipulation of posts deceived persons seeking a dentist such as himself, and his damages are said to be lost business. In support, he refers to the text of Yelp's Business Owner's Guide, described above. This statement by Yelp, however, is not addressed to those individual consumers seeking dentists; rather, it addresses business owners. Yelp's statement is not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer seeking dentistry, and is not a deceptive practice. Similarly, Reit's allegation that Yelp deletes postings for the purpose of selling advertising, if true, is business conduct, not consumer oriented conduct. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action must be granted. The application for injunctive relief also fails.

For the foregoing reasons it hereby is

ORDERED that Reit's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied and the temporary restraining order is vacated upon entry hereof; and it further is

ORDERED that the motion of defendant Yelp!, Inc. to dismiss the complaint against it is granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, with costs and disbursements as taxed, and to sever and continue the claims against Michael S.

FOOTNOTES

1. Subsequently, the Michael S. post was removed from the Yelp website, though for a time it was still accessible through the Google.com internet search engine. This has been remedied, and the Michael S. post is no longer available for view on the internet.

 

[james2012]

Negative online reviews leave doctors with little recourse In the Courts
amednews: Negative online reviews leave doctors with little recourse :: Oct. 4, 2010 ... American Medical News

By AMY LYNN SORREL
Posted Oct. 4, 2010.

The Internet is rife with reviews about the latest restaurant and auto repair shop someone tried the week before -- or a visit to a doctor. But some physicians say they shouldn't be reviewed online the same way people judge how a filet mignon was cooked or how fast a tire was changed. And when it comes to negative reviews, doctors say they have more at stake than other businesses.

New York dermatologist Sumayah Jamal, MD, PhD, grappled with the issue after discovering what she called false characterizations of her practice on the review website Yelp.

"When it comes to physicians, people are very cautious, and it's not just a matter of taste. It's a matter of your health and your life," she said. "This is much more serious than a review of whether you like a chocolate chip cookie at a particular bakery. People put their lives in the hands of doctors, so reviews on the Internet have a tremendous impact on the public perception of your integrity."

Several legal roadblocks put physicians at a disadvantage, however, in defending against inappropriate online reviews and the websites that host the postings, experts say. With many websites rating physicians, the issue has garnered significant attention from the medical community.

It wasn't until Yelp called Dr. Jamal to ask her to advertise that she discovered her practice, Keris Dermatology, had been reviewed. "I wasn't even aware I had a listing," she said.

After noticing that many negative reviews of her practice were at the top of her business listing, while the positive ones were at the bottom, she expressed her concern to Yelp.

The company said it uses an automated filtering system. The methodology is designed to give more credibility to established reviewers to provide more trustworthy content and guard against fake reviews by malicious competitors or disgruntled employees. The company contends that the review system is not linked in any way to advertising sponsorships.

But Dr. Jamal said the postings give an unbalanced view.

In one negative review, for example, Dr. Jamal said a patient disagreed with her diagnosis, saying it was motivated by greed. Another patient complained that Dr. Jamal's laser surgery recommendation also was financially driven. A third patient criticized her hiring practices as racist.

"Some things can have nothing to do with your practice at all," she said.

The dermatologist then sought positive reviews from her patients to balance out the negative ones, only to see them get filtered as well.

Dr. Jamal found it difficult to combat what she said were opinions about care rather than facts based on medical standards. She also faced violating patient confidentiality rules if she tried to dispel online allegations. Further complicating matters, most online reviews are anonymous, making it difficult to defend against dubious attacks from false patients, she said.

"I don't think people's opinions should be suppressed, but it is very dangerous when you have people with no expertise reviewing doctors in such a way that you really do need medical expertise to be fair," she said.

Review sites should take some responsibility for their content, particularly if they cannot verify the veracity of a posting or a reviewer's identity, Dr. Jamal said.

Legal hurdles

But Internet sites contend that because they merely post comments, they are protected by the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. The legislation, which was intended to encourage development of the Internet, immunizes providers of an "interactive computer service" from liability for defamatory statements made by a third party through their websites.

Yelp recently argued successfully for such protections to a New York trial court. In a September decision, New York Supreme Court Judge Jane S. Solomon ruled that the federal statute barred a dentist from suing Yelp for defamation and deceptive business practices. The dentist alleged that the website selectively removed positive reviews of his practice after he asked the website to remove what he said was a false and defamatory anonymous review. Yelp denied any wrongdoing. The dentist is considering an appeal.

Solomon said in Reit v. Yelp that under the statute, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Congress granted such entities immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material "so long as the information was provided by another party."

But the federal law was not meant to protect websites that are actively involved in how the information on their site is presented publicly, said Gregory S. Weston, a lead attorney in a class-action lawsuit a group of California businesses filed in March against Yelp. The group alleges that the website manipulated placement of negative reviews and leveraged them to solicit ad money, in violation of state unfair competition laws. The case, which awaits class certification, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Online review sites "do say something, and they are not acting passively when they filter reviews or order them in a certain way," said Weston, of The Weston Firm in San Diego.

Yelp denied any wrongdoing, saying businesses cannot pay to move or remove reviews. The company stands by its review filter, which is "entirely automated to avoid human bias, and it affects both positive and negative reviews," Yelp's website says.

Still, federal law makes it difficult for doctors to sue for Internet defamation, said Donald Moy, chief legal counsel to the Medical Society of the State of New York. The society has been monitoring the issue and seeking legislative and regulatory oversight at state and national levels.

Because most reviews are anonymous, tracking the identity of a reviewer can prove difficult, Moy said. Although state laws generally allow defamation claims, "an opinion cannot be found to be defamatory. In order to be defamatory, the statement that causes injury must be false. However, an opinion can neither be proven to be true or false."

Constitutional issues may arise in trying to restrict online communication, said Alan J. Howard, a constitutional law professor at Saint Louis University School of Law. If a reviewer "says something that's wrong or you think is wrong, you can rebut it. Normally what the First Amendment requires is more speech, not regulation of speech."

Fighting back

With such hurdles, the American Medical Association continues to study the issue as online review sites and patient involvement evolve.

AMA policy calls for the investigation of publication of physician information on Internet websites, potential solutions to erroneous physician information posted online and the development of educational materials to help doctors identify legal options to protect them from targeted harassment. AMA policy supports the use of physician profiling to promote quality of care, so long as the methods used promote accuracy and transparency and give physicians a chance to respond to the results.

"Websites like Yelp are popular because they are accessible, not because of their accuracy," Weston said. Even if prospective patients don't go to such sites directly to research a doctor, a general Internet search often brings up such reviews, influencing a practice's business, he said. "And the amount of lost business [physicians] can suffer can be substantially higher than the restaurant that charges $10 for a meal."

Meanwhile, Dr. Jamal remains vigilant. With little legal recourse and the inability to afford such help, she has turned to other tools and found one in particular to be effective: simple communication with her patients.

In some cases, Dr. Jamal said patients gave enough details in reviews that she was able to discern their identities. In those instances, she confronted her patients to resolve their grievances, taking time to explain that her recommendations were consistent with standards of care.

Some of Dr. Jamal's patients agreed to take down their negative reviews, though not all were receptive.

She now spends several hours a week checking her Yelp listing and e-mail notifications of review postings.

"I'm not saying [patients] can't say anything bad about me. They can express their opinions to friends, family, colleagues ... But if there's an issue, talk to me," she said. "You don't have to go on the Internet and ruin the reputation of a business that takes decades to build."

I have seen this site talked about a lot, but it comes at a cost just when physicians don't need to add any more cost to already crushing cash flow issue. Relying on the AMA is out for many physicians - at least the ones I talk to - who feel they were betrayed by the AMA during the ObamaCare saga. Anyway, here is the site - it is not just for doctors but any small business owner: http://www.reputationdefender.com/myedgepro?gclid=CLy2pYWouaQCFYjt7QodHHDOyg

 

[CubbieBlue]

I have found online reviews of services invaluable and 100% spot on. I have went to doctors who had bad reviews - guess what - they were shitty doctors.

I went to doctors with glowing reviews and - guess what - I still see those doctors.

 

[james2012]

I have found online reviews of services invaluable and 100% spot on. I have went to doctors who had bad reviews - guess what - they were shitty doctors.

I went to doctors with glowing reviews and - guess what - I still see those doctors.

I have had the oppostive experience. My cardiologist - a very respected research cardiologist who is also an electrical engineer and a lawyer - does not have the best bedside manner and can be rather abrupt. His ratings indicated that. Guess what, I was sent to him by my endocrinologist and had other doctors speak highly of him and others could not stand him. In the end I wanted results and professionalism, not to be held by the hand like a baby.

It was the best decision of my life. Over time his mannerism towards me warmed and he would spend a great deal of time talking with me once he knew I was running a blog about heart disease, its treatments, and how to deal with the disease.

I ignore those so-called opinions. What I look for is disciplinary action. If I find it, I dig deeper and make sure the action is not frivolous or politicially motivated. The later should remind you of someone and what happened to him is unconscionable.

 

[mrmorris]

+1

for sure gmerits, I coulden't agree anymore, well said!

Thanks, mrmorris

I have seen this site talked about a lot, but it comes at a cost just when physicians don't need to add any more cost to already crushing cash flow issue. Relying on the AMA is out for many physicians - at least the ones I talk to - who feel they were betrayed by the AMA during the ObamaCare saga. Anyway, here is the site - it is not just for doctors but any small business owner: http://www.reputationdefender.com/myedgepro?gclid=CLy2pYWouaQCFYjt7QodHHDOyg

 

[mrmorris]

+1

You make a very good point Cubbie! That is true there is usually a reason why a Physician was given a poor review!

Thanks, mrmorris

I have found online reviews of services invaluable and 100% spot on. I have went to doctors who had bad reviews - guess what - they were shitty doctors.

I went to doctors with glowing reviews and - guess what - I still see those doctors.

 

[CubbieBlue]

I have had the oppostive experience. My cardiologist - a very respected research cardiologist who is also an electrical engineer and a lawyer - does not have the best bedside manner and can be rather abrupt. His ratings indicated that. Guess what, I was sent to him by my endocrinologist and had other doctors speak highly of him and others could not stand him. In the end I wanted results and professionalism, not to be held by the hand like a baby.

It was the best decision of my life. Over time his mannerism towards me warmed and he would spend a great deal of time talking with me once he knew I was running a blog about heart disease, its treatments, and how to deal with the disease.

I ignore those so-called opinions. What I look for is disciplinary action. If I find it, I dig deeper and make sure the action is not frivolous or politicially motivated. The later should remind you of someone and what happened to him is unconscionable.

Truth.