The "gag contract" Wall of Shame

What is strange about both of the docs listed here is that neither were seriously bad. I would still go to either of them (always take other's opinions with a grain of salt right?). So i find it strange that they would have patients sign a waiver. It is an odd presentation as well isn't it? If i were to see an MD for the first time (or any medical practitioner, Acupuncturist, whatever) and they were forcing me to sign a waiver such as this prior to treatment i would wonder what in heaven's name are they hiding from? My initial confidence would be tainted with "are you going to do something inappropriate? Are you going to be incompetent, rude, intimidating?" This would cloud my relationship even if the MD was perfectly capable of treating me. I wonder if they take that into consideration.
At any rate, Thomas Jefferson would be pleased to know that the first amendment is still alive and well.

Canadian Medical Malpractice Lawyer Response to Gag Orders

"It is repulsive…and I think it is also a violation of doctor’s fiduciary duty to their patients."

http://www.halifaxmedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com/2009/03/doctors_forcing_patients_to_sign_gag_orders.html

I'd be interested to know if there's Legal Precedence for this, either in the U.S. or Canada? If not, how long will it take for a patient( to take this to the highest court in the land? The highest court seats judges, not physicians.

What issue would they take to the court? The "gag order" currently being floated is a consensual agreement. There are limits to CCRF (Canada) and the First Amendment (USA) such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre or consenting to not make disclosure.

The best defence is simply to not enter into any such agreement. I'd walk if any physician or surgeon presented me with a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to my care.

I have to agree. If a doctor asked me to sign a non-disclosure, I'd be questioning what little faith he/she has in themselves to treat me. Do they think they may "screw up" or that their personality is really that offensive? The best thing that could ever happen is the ability to go online and find others who have had an experience with a specific doctor....this site is awesome! People do research on the cars they buy, the house or apartment they buy or rent and just about anything else in their lives so why not the doctors they see? I do not believe I'd have back surgery if I couldn't research my potential surgeons.
I spoke to both surgeons and asked, do you have a list of references? They both looked at me strangely. I realize with HIPAA, the guidelines are short but with today's medical advancement, I'd expect a doctor or surgeon to ask..."Would you like to be considered a reference for potential patients to contact?" Typically references speak about only the positive aspects of a person's character but if as a patient, you were asked BEFORE treatment, then if the treatment did not go well, you could give an honest account of what you experienced. Even with places like this, you have to take all the reviews into consideration because you do not know the people and they could be fabricating their experience, exaggerating or the treatment's outcome may have not been causes by the surgeon. This just gives you a little more comfort that you are making the best possible decision. I'm not a surgeon but I am expected to make educated decisions on which surgeon is correct and which one isn't. Again, thanks John for this place!

Re: Doctors Forcing Patients to Sign Gag Orders

Undue influence

Know that virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, Extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive Abuse of Process are classic examples of duress.

Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility. Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner. Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim.

This section is from the book "Handbook Of The Law Of Contracts", by Wm. L. Clark, Jr.. Also available from Amazon: Handbook of the law of contracts.Influence

145. Undue influence is a species of fraud. It may be said generally to consist -

(a) In the use by one in whom confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him.

(b) In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind.

(c) In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities and distress.

146. EFFECT. Undue influence renders a contract voidable at the option of the injured party.

That's the point! The doctors here AREN'T bad. They're "pissed off" about being abused. They are fighting to protect themselves from being libeled on the internet without any recourse. Which until now was the reality of the situation. Slander and libel are not protected free speech so the First Amendment to the Constitution does not apply here. On the site RateMD's.com anyone may post anything they like about any physician and the doctor can't respond. The posts are anonymous. The same poster can make repeated comments at 30 day intervals I believe. This allows for repeated abuse. The site allows posters to write virtually anything. The comments don't even have to come from a patient because nothing is verified about the person posting or the rating. The rating could come from a disgruntled employee, ex-boyfriend or even a competing physician. This isn't an assault on patients rights. There doesn't exist the right to make defamatory public comments which are untrue or can't be verified about non-public figures. The law protects us (or should) against these assaults. At least until the advent of the Internet. Because of certain cyber law statutes doctors can't force these rating sites to remove a comment no matter what it says or how little it lacks validity. Nor can they sue the site because of their disclaimers. The waiver gives the doctor a legal method to remove libelous comments from the site. You can still say that you "can't stand Dr. X" to your family, friends and others. You can report him to his State Board, your insurance carrier and the Better Business Bureau. All legitimate venues for complaint. Dr. X, however, is not permitted to say to anyone even his wife that he "can't stand you" because that would violate your HIPPA rights. For this reason (your HIPPA rights) he risks a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars if he
directly responds to your negative posting. Fair huh? So rather I consider this a "Wall
of Honor" for physicians who stand up to bullies. By the way the individual who developed
this site had a similar site which defamed college professors. Who's next?

Get a grip. You cannot blame social ills on technology. This site is a facilitator, not a publisher, and cannot be held liable in much the same way as a printer cannot be held liable for a publisher's dissemination of writers' comments.

HIPPA rights have little to do with anything regarding patients' comments. It is the physician who holds themselves out to criticism as the provider of a service, not the patient. That is a common burden in commerce.

No site developed by the developer of this site has defamed college professors. If anyone has been defamed, it's been by posters, not the site nor the developer or owner.

What would you blame next, the Internet? Perhaps it should be sued.

I wouldn't restrict your comments to US law, either. Almost half the participants on this site's forum are citizens and residents of countries outside the US.

It's interesting that you should avail yourself of the forum provided by the very party whom you accuse of libelous activity, to voice your libel.

Your comments are untrue and your argument infantile. As for your employer, John Swapceinski, owner of this site... he is the founder of RateMyProfessors and RateMyTeachers.com. Just "Google" it folks. Following your line of reasoning then you wouldn't mind my posting info about your career as a pediphile, or drunkard or wifebeater right? That's free speech right? Yes, we know John's hiding behind his role as facilitator. He's done this before and brags that he's never been sued. Well there's a first time for everything. By the way I looked at the postings of the four doctors on the "wall of shame." Did you notice that they all have the exact same negative posting comment with the exact same rankings of "3" rating their competence as physicians even though the four doctors are located in four different states. Boy, that patient sure gets around or could it be that the postings aren't in fact from patients but created by RateMDs.com to punish the doctors who stood up to Mr. Swapceinski? Hmmmmm?

There are at least 2000 members of Medical Justice and growing. Better get busy with your list.

Careful, doc. I am a professional and retired from private practice. However, if you wish to test the law of libel, you may just be accommodated.

Your choice of words has your hypothesis falling short and appearing as an assertion of fact. If you want to make defamatory comments, as you have, that I am as you have described above, you might be well advised to seek legal counsel.

The ratings of the four doctors listed on the Wall of Shame are not identical. Two of then contain identical quotes, because they are quoting the same source document. Anyone can read this for themselves. Get your story straight.

BTW, my comments are perfectly true and the argument sound. It is your actions, calling posters innocent of any interaction with you or association with the website facilitator which have you looking infantile. You are quickly becoming a waste of everyone's time, but keep posting Rating replies. That causes your comments to be archived within Google as well, furthering the incidence by which you or the posts relating to the doctors concerned, will be returned on a search query.

Try to hold yourself to a higher standard as you should, doc.

Now there's an interesting take on (if valid) libel.

Social ill, eh ?

Libel is a conscious decision without the ability to claim ignorance as a defence.

Unfortunately for most, libel may well be unconscious - given human nature, "unassailable" belief in self, perception (valid or otherwise) of experience, and emotional / injudicious word use.

Entirely sure about your definitions apropos facilitator / publisher vis a vis a website, in all jurisdictions - and especially the printer analogy ?

Disclaimers warning users against libel could well be interpreted by some as an admission that the "facilitation" has inherent flaws (given human nature).

A learned judge, undoubtedly wiser than you and I, may well (debatedly) hold the "facilitator/publisher" (whatever rocks your boat) to a higher standard, in terms of the very disclaimer being an acknowledgement that facilitator led policing may not be perfect.

The Abu Ghraib defence of "I was just following orders", may be a convoluted simile.

Attempts are sensibly made at policing, but some individual may decide that he / she would prefer a judge to be the policeman.

And that's bound to be a drag, that type of debate is expensive - potentially lifestyle alteringly expensive.

Law is a great leveller, and can be incredibly harsh, with no space for emotion, just hard cold fact. And to some, legal definitions may well indeed seem ultimately immoral, in their firm belief in their cause.

There is a commonly held misperception as to where the burden of proof lies in libel (which you have been at pains to point out).

Ultimately, no matter how well presented or packaged, no matter how "valid" the perception of the presenter, without being directly involved, neither you nor I can judge.

Nor can the "facilitator".

Vent, but vent judiciously - it's a fine line.

And that's just the nature of the beast.

Buyer beware.

The definition regarding facilitator in the U.S. has been made (CDA, Section 230) and upheld by the court.

...

All arguments against anonymity may not have considered a vital issue-

Should a patient actually reveal her/his name on their rating, then that patient takes the risk of being "black listed" by the medical community.

A year or so back I read about a dr. web site that was compiling what they referred to as litigous patients.
[ those who have already sued a dr. or hospital]

I've never been able to find why it was taken down since the plaintiff's names were a matter of public record.
Perhaps because of the site's inference that "these" patients were at risk of sueing their next dr. and this amounted to becoming a "black list" of patients.

Then there is the legal argument that someone cannot be accused [especially on a public forum] of what they "might do"-

So there is something to be said about RateMds' patients' rights to that anonymity if there exists a danger of being "black listed" by medical professionals.

Something to think about

The eye roll was mesmerising.

Be wary of confusing, for posters, the real issue.

The need for anonimity and libel do not equate in this context.

Anonimity is tenuous, and a perception.

Blacklisting may well exist - people say that it does.

Blacklisting, as a motivator, is an example of what I was referring to above : jurisprudence is cold, harsh, factual and objective.

No judge would accept blacklisting as an acceptable motivation for factual libel, unless adequately convinced that it would be in the public interest (in the context of a Jekyll / Hyde scenario).

It's actually very easy to convey what you mean without unnecessarily exposing oneself : it's simply semantics and word choice.

Stick to what you are qualified to comment on : verbalising one's perception of a (negative) experience (valid), as opposed to claiming fact in "adjudging" competency.

"I came away with the feeling that my needs had not been met", or "I felt that my treatment was below the standard of care".

As opposed to statements of "fact".

So simple, but so misunderstood.

Perhaps another candidate for the Wall:

Dr. Larry Fishman, MD
427 South Parson Avenue, Suite 110
Brandon, FL 33511

He is apparently, another Medical Justice client. (MJ is the company who has authored many of the (not so many) patient gag orders in existence.)

RateMDs rating:
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/53521/FL/Brandon/Fishman

Florida state medical board:
http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/IRM00PRAES/PRASINDI.ASP?LicId=43965&ProfNBR=1501

Liability actions within the last 10 years:
http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00Profiling/ProfileACTIONS.asp?LicId=43965&ProfNBR=1501

About.com article:
http://patients.about.com/b/2009/02/16/doctors-ratings-gag-orders-file-this-under-no-wonder.htm

ccf:
I feel you'd be better served if you checked the legal/constitutional standing of these "so called" gag agreements. They are virtually unenforceable.
What is interesting is that your coments sound as if your toes were stepped on.

Properly written, non-disclosure agreements are enforceable. As long as consideration is given by one party to the other, as in the contract of service between two parties where service and payment are the consideration, a confidentiality agreement can be collateral to such.

Executing a non-disclosure agreement without both valuable consideration (money) in the absence of its being collateral to another agreement could be an issue. Such would be the case when it is not collateral to a "new" contract for service.

Other than that, an agreement entered into freely which has a legal object is not illegal.

Mic

"Other than that, an agreement entered into freely which has a legal object is not illegal."

True - in the legal sense.
However at the "time" of the agreement - a patient may be in pain and require immediate treatment or has another situation that could apply.
Regardless, patients should be advised by the dr. to have said agreement reviewed for the legality of the wording.

However, let's say no advice is given for patient to obtain legal representation to have it reviewed and patient signs agreement -[with no representation]
Gets treatment and malpractice occurs.
Now the only recourse is to complain directly to that dr.- or to file a complaint in court if there is injury.

At a later time patient finally learned that she/he had no representation to review the legality of the contract

Should that patient wish to use RateMds anonymously - and the dr. discovers who that patient is- do you think
said contract would hold up in a court of law?

You raise an important point. If a patient, while in distress, executes an agreement and then receives treatment, during which the physician commits some tortious action, leaving the patient to desire to complain publicly, they might well be able to claim that the agreement was not fully executed in that as it is collateral to the primary agreement and as that was breached (by-product of the tort), it too would be void. I think these contracts really become binding upon the completion of the first transaction under the primary agreement successfully completed by both parties, and that the patient returning to the the physician for additional treatment, complaints, etc., would serve as evidence of such.

I don't think the lack of legal counsel attendant to the execution of the contract is a major criteria. That usually becomes an issue where there is an oppressive or continuing obligation without continuing benefit.

Good points~

umm...what I think you said is:
if patient signs contract, is injured and does not go back
then seeks legal counsel
then posts the facts on some website anonymously
saying the agreement was coerced uner duress
then no litigation can follow for defamation .

And I think you said:
IF patient signs contract and treatment is executed --
injury follows, but goes back for continuous treatment, then this validates the "gag"contract but "only for posting online. " Because to my knowledge nothing can gag a patient from filing a legal complaint in a court of law.

The original poster's #145 is specific to the protection of a vulnerable party
However this gets pretty complicated and it would require input from a contract attorney- which of course I am not.

i see alot of comments about what if a patient signs this under duress...my question is, what if they sign it under completely normal circumstances...they come in for an upper respiratory infection, and they just dont like the bedside manner of a doc and decide to write something online...is this contract enforcable then?..i agree, it gets sticky when a patient is signing something under duress...however, if they are in that much of an acute situation where they might be in duress, they probably shouldnt be at a new doctors office, maybe the ER would be more appropriate??

Some insurances won't pay for an ER visit unless you get a referral first, as crazy as that sounds. I know someone who is an EMT whose kid fell out of a tree, clearly had a compound arm fracture and had to go to the family doc first to get the referral to the ER.

Even my ER visit the other night, when I was sent by my doctor was a $65 co-pay. If my doctor had seen me in the office, which is what I wanted all week, it would have been a $20 co-pay. If I had been admitted to the hospital, which is what the ER doc wanted, there would have been no co-pay. Sometimes, for people, it's dollars and cents. I'm still at the point where I have the luxury of saying it's health care first, but I'm well aware there are many people in my position.

but if you are at a NEW doctors office, then its probably not your primary doc anyways, seeing as though it usually takes time to get on that primary doc's patient list, unless of course you time your duress to be the same time as when you get on your docs patient list?..lol..totally kidding around there...i guess whether you need a referral or not really is not my point...although you raise a great incompetance if what you wrote is correct...but still doesnt really answer my question...

Unless, you can't get into your primary or your primary has just retired or left town and you decide to try out the new primary.

I don't know, just trying to point out that sometimes that there may be duress.

Also, several of my longtime doctors have just changed office policies. It's like they all went to the same bar or gym after work one night and talked about it and thought this would be a great idea. I've had to read and sign a lot of things lately, when I've been there for pain visits, so it's not like my old agreements were grandfathered in.

rocky, i understand the point you are trying to make, that being said however, you cant just "try out" a new primary, unless you plan on paying out of pocket anyways?? but if you do fall under the "just retired" or left town category, i guess i would lump that in the same group as "

"unless of course you time your duress to be the same time as when you get on your docs patient list?"

again, just teasing a bit here...

but, but, but, back to my original question, what if they come in non distressed, for an upper resp infx etc......

the contract?? lol

Are you kidding--of course you can "try out" or as I call it "audition" a new doctor. What if you go to some one who you don't like from the start? It happens. What if you go to someone who has never even heard of half of your medical conditions? You say thank you very much, say at the desk that you'll call to reschedule, and start your search again, that's what you do.

I also don't go back to the dry cleaners who hand me back clothes with stains.

And any time a doctor hands a patient the contract as a condition of being seen, it's duress. It's just a matter of how much duress.

kiddoc
Well there is duress and then there is "influence"
In other words -new patient aside..

A patient is already seeing this doc and all of a sudden, the gag contract is presented.

Then what-
This gag thing causes many repercussions and scenarios.
Such as---
supposing the patient feels that treatment would be adversely affected now - if they don't sign - so they do.. they feel forced to stay with this doc [that is duress.][

Or by not signing they are now forced to find another doc in the middle of treatment- and while waiting for acceptance by another doc - their condition worsens? Would that be patient abandonment?

Also - will gags lower the cost of insurance or defense counsel?
or will gags cause more litigation?
Will gags that are signed by the elderly be considered elder abuse?

Unless legislation is enacted - I think the whole idea is a bunch of garbage.

then i guess it depends on your insurance, because most people who HAVE to pick a primary doc, have to because its a "network" coverage", hence referrals to in network docs etc,...if you are on one docs primary list, and you want to go to another primary doc, at least with the insurance companies i deal with, WILL NOT pay for your "audition doc"..so then who is responsible to pay the audition doc?...if you dont like a doc from the start, you can switch to another docs primary list..although im sure there is a time period you would have to wait..

as far as defining duress...i suppose/kinda/will expand my horizons lol ( )and just for arguments sake accept and go along with the duress created with signing one of those...

now imalert..ill try to cut and paste so bare with me..lol..

"A patient is already seeing this doc and all of a sudden, the gag contract is presented."

if you have been with this same doc for awhile now, and all of a sudden the contract is presented...i would hope that just by the mere fact youve been with him up until this point, means you are happy/comfortable with him as your doc...you already know his bedside manner etc etc etc....i guess my point would be, you "know" them already....would there still be duress created seeing as though youve been a longtime patient of the doc? and have been satified with your care up to this point...without any issues..??

"they feel forced to stay with this doc [that is duress.]["

if you feel forced at any time..for whatever reason..contract or non-contract issues...you always have the right to leave and find another doc....dont you?

"Or by not signing they are now forced to find another doc in the middle of treatment- and while waiting for acceptance by another doc - their condition worsens? Would that be patient abandonment?"

yes it would be abandonment if the doc who presents you with the contract refuses to give you a grace period (usually 30 days) to find a new doc, in the meantime, ie the 30 days, you are still his patient...unless of course you are a private practice owner...(like myself) and can accept/discharge a patient at any given time for any given reason without needing to give notice..and YES before you say it, that would be extremely cruel and mean...and in most cases wrong..

now back to originally scheduled programming...lol..assuming you have no problem signing, therefore no duress created... ....and someone just doesnt like a doc...the argument of "duress" then isint an issue...(or is it still somewhere?? lol)...then

the contract??

Well kiddoc
You have some valid points of course.

Let's put it this way- your wife goes to a new physician
and a gag contract is presented. You evidently have no problem with her signing it without your review?
Or should she cancel the visit and bring it home for you to read.
But then, it is SHE who must abide by it. Not YOU. So what would prevent you from publicising her death on a blog if you had supportive evidence tha he was responsible?

Put another way- the gag contract is full of holes. Too much like a pre-nuptual -- and those are always reviewed by attorneys.

well.......insert sarcasm here.....seeing as though im not married...well, at least not for 8 more months..yikes!!! .....lmao...my wife wouldnt be going to a new physician....im rollin on the floor over here...ugh...anyways, IF i had a wife..i repeat...IF i had one, personally i wouldnt want my wife to sign ANYTHING she didnt know of what it was and or felt comfortable about signing?? but i guess i would put that in the same category of "signing any kind of form" (for lack of better description of words) that you would be signing wherever...other general intake forms at a docs office (non contract gag forms), credit card receipt when signing at your local pub of choice..lol, etc etc..

and you are correct...only the signee i think would be held to it, not really sure what it says about family memebers...(dont have one of em handy to read! lol)

but did ya really have to use the example of death?..lil harsh dont ya think..couldnt ya have just said...what if she ended up with a severe headache because the doc wouldnt see her to fill her blood pressure meds?? sorry dont mean to minimize death here, just trying to make a point, that a family member if unsatisfied with whatever the results may be, might not be held to that contract if they didnt sign it themselves..

a family member if unsatisfied with whatever the results may be, might not be held to that contract if they didnt sign it themselves..

kiddoc
That alone renders the gag contract impotent. LOL

While the legality of the non-disclosure agreement stands on its own, the validity of any contract depends on affirmation by performance. You agree to the primary (medical services) contract, and the collateral agreement (non-disclosure) takes effect. However, if your later claim that the primary contract was breached for any reason, you *may* have a valid argument that the collateral agreement was invalidated. The counter argument is that if the non-disclosure agreement is invalidated, it is so from the point immediately following breach of the primary agreement and thus, all information disclosed to the patient by the doctor is subject to the non-disclosure. *If* the argument that the doctor acted fraudulently in performing on the primary agreement, then a counter argument to the counter argument regarding the validity of the collateral agreement arises, in that the collateral agreement was never validated in the first place, being based on a fraudulent primary agreement. These arguments are sometimes found in employment situations where an employee is terminated prior to the end of a 90-day probation period, the question as to the validity of their employment contract bringing the non-disclosure agreement into question.

If a patient can demonstrate breach of the primary (medical care) agreement, the collateral non-disclosure may come into question. This, of course, pertains to disclosures made from the "transaction" at which the questionable medical practice occurred; previous disclosures, to the extent the primary agreement was valid, would continue to be protected.

There is another question to the enforceability of collateral non-disclosure agreements. Written agreements (non-disclosures) should be based on written primary agreements. The enforceability of a written agreement based on an oral agreement can easily be brought into question.

This is out of context but in the circumstance as I have edited it, the ER on a lot of occasions is actually the most appropriate thing to go for. This is what I recommended for one woman and eventually she did get the treatment that she needed.

Oh come on. Doctors black ball patients all the time! Talk behind their backs and in writing within their own personal forum, "office notes". HIPPA laws do not protect patients as doctors may talk freely amongst themselves and other caregivers. What doctors say influences our treatment,our insurance coverage and premiums. This site does not even come close to leveling the playing field.

The problem with some of these sites are their inaccuracy in comments. We had an incident with a patient that posted a poor rating after having received the "best care" as per her comments and that quickly changed when we sent her a bill and finally had to turn her over to a collection agency due to non-payment. We found she posted a negative comment of one of these sites and when we tried to contact the site, we were informed if we paid $3400.00 we could have the comment removed. In another instance, our office manager for a two physician practice, disliked one physician and went on this very site and posted a very favorable comment on the physician of her liking even though she does not receive care from him.

This conspiratorial theory is without merit, likely can not be proven, and is likely written by someone other than a doctor. Physician's who share care of the patient (ie consultants or covering) are certainly within their rights to discuss a patient's care, but to assume all they do is laugh, snicker and malign....are simply paranoid and incorrect.

Few medical providers would be stupid enough to write something to the effect warning another provider to avoid the patient, thus my theory. Of course, if you have evidence of this, please present it. Patients can be discharged from a large multi-specialty practice if operating under the same roof, as the practice shares liability/care costs etc.

$3,400??? I'm definitely in the wrong business! I imagine they were claiming that that would be the cost of some sort of (major) investigation. I can't see RateMDs doing any such thing, though I'm sure this post will catch their attention!

tw, I would be very interested to know what site you are referring to. I have read these payment allegations made about yelp.com (http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS307405236420090507).

John

Dr. Samuel Lam of Plano, TX should be added to this list.

He also enforced a gag order on his patients, but its waived of course if the surgeries turn out well!

"The HIPPA Laws are a joke they protect the doctors not the patients!"

Best way to find out is to go to the Medical Justice website and put in a doctor's name to see if he is a "member". Many, if not most require the "gag" order contract:

http://www.medicaljustice.com/member-lookup.aspx

ah, good to know, dcnga; thanks for letting us know.

If anyone is able to get any hits on that lookup page, please post the names here.

John

What is the purpose of the site? To rate Doctors so that anybody can look up a Docots name and based on their rating decide if they want to choose that Doctor. Ok How fair is that to the Doctors many of which don't know about the sites. And yes it is libelus to write untruth about anybody. This form provides it. I'm not saying thats all bad. However, there needs to be a check and balance.And no the physician do not hold themselves out to critisim anymore than the the patient or this service. I bet you would feel different if the posting was about you and your job skills if the comments where not true.

Untruthful comments does not necessarily constitute libel. Neither do those attributing to one's character. Only when they serve to diminish a person's reputation (what they do, not who they are) in the eyes of the community (immoral or criminal conduct, for example) do they constitute libel.

The servers filter ratings and posts for a myriad of terms having the potential for conveying defamation. Additionally, site admins review ratings and posts and complaints made by third parties. It's not that libelous statements can't be made, so much as they rarely "stick" for any period of time.

Doctors are quite free to post Ratings replies and otherwise post, and many take advantage of that facility. I think an increasing number of doctors are becoming very aware of this site, particularly as its content is frequently indexed by Google many times throughout the day. A rated or discussed physician need only Google their own name to come across a rating, reply, or post.

Thank you so much on tring to educate me on what is libel. I'm very aware of what it is and what you need to be guilty of making those kind of statements. I did not say that sites like this do not serve a purpose. However, why should the doctors have to take the time out of the day to come and check the site to see if anything has been posted.

Here's another one from the group Medical Justice. He does not have a rating here.
Dr. Michael Smith, Harrisonburg, VA

Since when does the average person take a stranger's opinion and consider it the "word"? If a stranger walked up to me and told me how horrible a doctor is, I would take it with a "grain of salt" A person's perception and opinion is based on their personal experience, not always fact.

Now, on the other hand....IF the doctor is really that bad, there will be many people who come forward with their stories which would persuade me to look elsewhere.

I came to this site to find a surgeon and I read everyone's story of that doctor/office before making my decision. Just because someone had a bad experience, I'm not immediately writing off that doctor. When I chose my neurosurgeon, there were 2 negative comments out of 6. I chose to ignore their stories as I felt they lacked merit and truth.

Just because there is a negative remark made about a doctor, doesn't mean their business will be hurt. As for the Wall of Shame, I would rather be warned that a doctor plans on making me sign the contract before I waste my time going to see him. Many offices would never mention it on the phone when you call for your initial appointment.

I believe that is the premise behind the wall of shame. It was inspired by the website of Medical Justice. One the worst things in any situation is to be handed paperwork that you personally do not agree with. What if you really need or like this Dr and office; now wants you to sign away your right to free speech? You have not done anything wrong. Is that fair to you? To just spring the papers in your face. Most people will back down and sign anyway is what they are hoping for.

I had a PCP pull this on me when walking out of his office. I was not the only one who refused to sign but got discharged from the practice. My luck, I found and even better PCP. The old dr.'s office stopped because patients where leaving and refusing to sign. So, are they that stupid to watch there pay checks walk out the door? We do not have a shortage of medical practices here. Only thing we have more of are lawyers, there is one lawyer for every 100 persons in the population here.

What is a "GAG" contract?

Its something that a number of doctors are requiring their patients to sign. They call it a "mutual privacy agreement" where you don't rate them on a site like this and they won't give your name to any pharmaceutical reps.

You can look up any doctor and see if they pay for the services of Medical Justice, which provides a lot of "protections" for its member doctors:

http://www.medicaljustice.com/member-lookup.aspx

You are right. That is where this whole blog started from but has kind of gotten lost in all the postings. Thank you
for posting it again.

Did you check to see if your doctors are members? If they are, you should post their names here.

I know that this is not the same, but it is similar in that people's liberties are being revoked. My post and concerns have to do with coerced arbitration forms. Florida hospital emergency departments makes you sign an arbitration form, which is convienently part of the consent to treatment form, and do not allow you to make changes in the form because they claim that you can not make changes to a legal document. According to the patient financial representative, Ginny, you will be denied treatment if you do not sign the form.

If I am thinking right don't HIPPA laws PREVENT them giving your name to anyone anyway? Seems like the only one getting a benefit from a gag contract is the doctor.

In response to:
Oh come on. Doctors black
Submitted by puddentane on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 00:10.

Oh come on. Doctors black ball patients all the time! Talk behind their backs and in writing within their own personal forum, "office notes". HIPPA laws do not protect patients as doctors may talk freely amongst themselves and other caregivers. What doctors say influences our treatment,our insurance coverage and premiums. This site does not even come close to leveling the playing field.
..........

Not only this.... doctors ALSO permanently TAINT patient's reputation, and medical history by what they put in the patient's record. What is written in the doctor's notes can cause LONG term damage to patients. And the patient doesn't always know, & sometimes NEVER finds out. Some doctors REFUSE to give certain portions of the chart to the patient, but will send it to a fellow doctor. (with a records release) The things they say can follow a person for years. And doctors "blackballing" patients...I agree 100%, I know it happens. I've seen it, not only to me but to others. And not just as a patient, but as a MEDICAL OFFICE STAFF MEMBER!!! (in my past)

I ALWAYS STRESS to patients..... ALWAYS ask for a copy of your paperwork on each visit. If they tell you it is not ready ask to get it on the next visit. KEEP TRACK, When you make a followup appt as you leave, NOTE in your calender that you need records from previous visit. Keep a copy of your records yourself. If you do not have them, GET THEM. Make the investment and PAY for them. When I got all mine, I was SHOCKED...... I found they put things in my chart that had NOTHING to do with my medical info. Things you think you are saying privately, that need not be mentioned to get your medical info documented. Not only that, I was misquoted MANY MANY times. The symptoms I described, were not documented correctly.... So no wonder I was misdiagnosed. I also found that I was NOT told things from test results, which turned out to be CRITICAL to my long term well being. Now, I have my chart, I can review it, AND I have control over it, I know what is being told to my new doctors, and I am able to clarify things that are SIMPLY WRONG in my chart. So not only can what they say in your chart "slander" you it can HURT you..... LITERALLY. And HIPPA can't protect us from this at all, it's 100% legal....

I would love to know what this is:

"Florida hospital emergency departments makes you sign an arbitration form, which is convienently part of the consent to treatment form, and do not allow you to make changes in the form because they claim that you can not make changes to a legal document."

A general release of responsibility as part of consent to treatment?

The other silliness is referring to a yet to be executed form as being a "document", legal or otherwise.

Why would doctors need a gag contract unless they are substandard or just insecure?

That's likely the simple reason. Of course, those who demand them would probably cite patients as being unreasonable, excitable, Internet crazy, or something equally as nonsensical. Punish the majority for the acts of a few.

I totally agree with the comment that you find out things when you ask for your files. I asked my dentist for my files so I could send them to the Dental Board just to receive them and find out that the dentist put me in braces without ever taken my initial x-ray. That wasn't even my complaint to the board. I wish JohnRatemd would open a thread here like this one with intimidating letters from doctor's. When I wrote my review I got a letter from my dentist's attorney. Quotes below:

" This correspondence is in regard to the scurrilous, false, and defamatory writings that you have authored and published on the following known websites:"

" Demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist from making any further defamatory publications..."

" Demand is further made that you take all necessary action to immediately withdraw all false and defamatory publications that you have previously made. If you fail to take the appropriate action necessary to remedy your on going tortuous conduct, please be advised that my client has instructed me to pursue all legal remedies available to him."

" I will continue to monitor these known publications and if they are not retracted within the next seven days, or on or before September 12, 2009, I will be required to proceed in my client's best interest without further notice to you."

Three different doctors OBGYN,PCP, and a Gastroenterologist required a form like the following to be signed, or they would not treat me. If you don't want to read the entire agreement you can scroll down to the last sentence. It also states in Article 1 that I agree to give up my constitutional rights... I did not sign.

I don't think anyone should be able to rate the same doctor more than once. Isn't there a way to maintain anonymity while allowing one comment per physician?

Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement

Article 1: Agreement to Arbitrate: It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently, or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by ---law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as –law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Both parties to its contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration.

Article 2: All Claims Must be Arbitrated: It is the intention of the parties that this agreement bind all parties whose claims may arise out of or relate to treatment or service provided by the physician including any spouse or heirs of the patient and any children, whether born or unborn, at the time of the occurrence giving rise to any claim. In the case of any pregnant mother, the term “patient” here in shall mean both the mother and the mother’s expected child or children.
All claims for monetary damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court against the physician, and the physician’s partners, associates, association, corporation or partnership, and the employees, agents and estates of any of them , must be arbitrated including, without limitation, claims for loss of consortium wrongful death, emotional distress or punitive damages. Filing of any action in any court by the physician to collect any fee from the patient shall not waive the right to compel arbitration of any malpractice claim.

Article 3: Procedures and Applicable Law: A demand for arbitration must be communicated in writing to all parties. Each party shall select an arbitrator (party arbitrator) within thirty days and a third arbitrator (neutral arbitrator) shall be selected by the arbitrators appointed by the parties, within thirty days of a demand for a neutral arbitrator by either party. Each party to the arbitration shall pay such party’s pro rata share of the expenses and fees of the neutral arbitrator, together with other expenses of the arbitration incurred or approved by the neutral arbitrator, not including counsel fees or witness fees, or other expenses incurred by a party for such party’s own benefit. The parties agree that the arbitrators have the immunity of a judicial officer from civil liability when acting in the capacity of arbitrator under this contract. This immunity shall supplement, not supplant, any other applicable statutory or common law.
Either party shall have the absolute right to arbitrate separately the issues of liability and damages upon written request to the neutral arbitrator.
The parties consent to the intervention and joinder in the arbitration of any person or entity which would otherwise be a proper additional party in a court action, and upon such intervention and joinder any existing court action against such additional person or entity shall be stayed pending arbitration.
The parties agree that provisions of ----law applicable to health care providers shall apply to disputes within this arbitration agreement, including but not limited to,........................................ Any party may bring before the arbitrators a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Discovery shall be conducted pursuant to...................; however, depositions may be taken without prior approval of the neutral arbitrator.

Article 4: General Provisions: All claims based upon the same incident, transaction or related circumstances shall be arbitrated in one proceeding. A claim shall be waived and forever barred if (1) on the date notice thereof is received, the claim, if asserted in a civil action, would be barred by the applicable ---statue of limitations, or (2) the claimant fails to pursue the arbitration claim in accordance with the procedures prescribed herein with reasonable diligence. With respect to any matter not herein expressly provided for, the arbitrators shall be governed by the ---Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to arbitration.

Article 5: Revocation: This agreement may be revoked by written notice delivered to the physician within 30 days of signature. It is the intent of the agreement to apply to all medical services rendered any time for any condition.

Article 6: Retroactive Effect: If a patient intends this agreement to cover services rendered before the date it is signed (including, but not limited to, emergency treatment) patient should initial below:
If any provision of the arbitration agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and shall not be affected by the invalidity of any other provision.
I understand that I have the right to receive a copy of this arbitration agreement. By my signature below, I acknowledge that I have received a copy.
NOTICE: BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL. SEE ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CONTRACT.

BETTY BOB'S POST
" Filing of any action in any court by the physician to collect any fee from the patient shall not waive the right to compel arbitration of any malpractice claim.
"

Clever! What this means is that the dr can use the court to collect legal fees from the patient [or any other type of fees]
I guess IF the dr, wins or loses legal fees and wants to contest - THEY can use the courts but NOT vice versa?

If a dr thinks I would sign this without seeing an attorney he is CRAZY [but not a dr. I would want anyway!]

A story appeared on MSNBC.COM this morning on the subject of doctors' gag orders. Much of it stated what we've heard time and again, except that it perhaps contains a tad bit more information, and a chance to express directly to the media our voice regarding doctors' gag orders.

Excerpts from:

Docs seek to stifle patients’ rants on Web sites

But ‘medical gag order’ contracts may backfire with bad publicity

The anonymous comments are among the freewheeling posts on RateMDs.com, one of dozens of physician rating Web sites that have sprung up in recent years, offering anyone with access to a computer the chance to rave — or rant — about the treatment received from a doctor. ......

About 1,000 of Medical Justice’s 2,300 members require patients to sign privacy waivers, Segal said, making them part of a small but growing group of doctors trying to clamp down on scathing reviews.

“Patient will not denigrate, defame, disparage, or cast aspersions upon the Physician; and will use all reasonable efforts to prevent any member of their immediate family or acquaintance from engaging in any such activity,” reads the “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy” form posted on the site of [name deleted], a plastic surgeon and Medical Justice member ......

“Published comments on web pages, blogs, and/or mass correspondence, however well intended, could severely damage Physician’s practice.” ......

The contracts typically limit patient comments for five years from the last doctor’s visit and they imply that breaking the terms could land the patients in court. Matthew Zimmerman, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which monitors digital rights, says it’s not likely lawsuits against patients or Web site providers would be successful.

“The doctor can’t legally go to the Web site and demand that the content come down,” said Zimmerman. ......

The website asks the question, "Do patients have the right to rant or rave about their doctors on review Web sites?", where you can submit your choice of answer from:

* Absolutely. The right to review doctors is in the best interest of consumers and public health.
* Yes, but there should be restrictions. Patients shouldn't be able to say just anything. And doctors should be given the opportunity to respond to complaints.
* No. It's not fair. Disgruntled people can defame doctors without any consequences.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34794632/ns/health-health_care/from/ET)

It's not slander or libel unless its untrue, in other words the first amendment protects free speech even if it is repulsive to someone else, unless it's a lie and the offended party can prove damages from the "lie". Legally the docs that try to stifle critics freedom of speech don't have a leg to stand on. They can always open up their own little website complaining about patients as long as it doesn't violate HIPPA laws. It would be interesting to see what they are saying about us behind our backs, eh??

Freedom of Speech (First Amendment, USA) and Freedom of Expression (Section 2(b), Canada) have their limitations, and do not protect one from accountability for uttering a defamatory statement.

It's not necessary in all jurisdictions to prove a defamatory statement to be a "lie" to collect damages. Libel is probably the only tort in which damages may be awarded without substantiation, the court itself placing a value on a plaintiff's loss of reputation.

All that is required in most jurisdictions and most instances is for the aggrieved party to prove the existence of the defamatory statement, and the onus falls upon the defendant to prove the statement's truth. Libel actions can be fairly easy and low cost to launch, relative to the costs of defending one.

In most jurisdictions both plaintiffs and defendants may request a jury trial--even for the tort of libel. Therefore, the court itself may not immediately place a value on the plaintiff's loss of reputation unless the court has been selected by the parties as the finder of fact to hear and decide the case. Even then, prior to delivering its typical opinion and order favoring the medical provider, the court must accept preliminary motions and briefs and, possibly, hear oral arguments of the parties in order to find some factual and legal basis for then articulating its decision in favor of the medical provider. Otherwise, the court could be overruled on appeal.

Libel is initially substantiated when the plaintiff shows that the defendant's statement, which is being claimed libelous, was published to the public; by the defendant via some medium; that the published statement is false and that the plaintiff is therefore damaged. However, the truth of the published statement is all a patient need prove to overcome the complaint of the tort of libel--whether or not the medical provider was damaged by that truth.

Doctors and dentists, their expensive insurance company provided attorneys, state legislatures easily influenced by powerful special interests groups and overly efficient judges make it easy for medical providers to win against patients in the pretrial procedural stages of the civil court justice system. Therefore, it is practically impossible for the underrepresented, often pro se, injured patients ever to get their cases before a jury.

These internet blogs are one of the very few means injured patients have to tell others about their experience of injury and injustice encountered within the highly educated, respected, wealthy, licensed, professional community. Free speech is about the only justice left to the individual in that it provides the vulnerable injured a chance to vent and to warn the public to carefully vet their own medical providers as if they are injured by them--they are not bloody likely to have any real opportunity to prevail in a court of law.

MSNBC.com has an article entitled "Docs seek to stifle patients' rants on Web sites". It talks about RateMDs.com and the all of shame. We have made it to the big time!

Attaching a value to a reputation and thus its loss, is the norm in BC courts, as well as the rest of the country.

Let me say a couple of points about gag contracts. Sure they protect doctors from defamation...however they also protect incompetent, corrupt doctors from their failures becoming known....EVEN TO THE MEDICAL BOARD! Yes, with some gag contracts you would not be able to even report what your doctor did to you to your State's medical board!!!! THAT IS R-E-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-B-L-E!!!

I just looked up the medical justice website and Dr. Samuel Lam is a member. Am I surprised? No I am not. If there are any patients with negative experiences with him, Dr. Samuel Lam removes them off his website immediately. If you post a positive comment, thats okay for him. If negative, he asks the administrators of those sites to remove them. Dr. Lam runs his business by making videos of his 'happy' testimonials, he posts them all over YouTube (and many other media websites), blogs and they are all under his personal account. If a doctor does work on 10,000 patients, posts 100 videos on his site of the better outcomes, and ignores the failed surgeries....is that really an accurate portrayal of his practice? Or even his character? For Dr. Lam, the truth will hurt him far worse than slander.

A good doctor welcomes criticism and uses that to improve his practice. A bad, careless doctor will probably start placing blaming others (including RateMD)...they will blame everyone else but themselves. They would also say they were just unlucky to have difficult patients who are posting lies all over the web (please...even "good" doctors get their fair share of difficult or crazy patients and they don't have this problem)! To these doctors...any negative comment about their work is a "lie" or "slander" or "defamation." Please.

Some examples of things that I have seen to do with this site:

Fired employees posting MANY negative reviews about their former employer pretending to be a patient

Patients who aren't happy with their (correct) diagnosis making accusations of malpractice against their physician

Patients threatening doctors with negative reviews if they do not supply the patient with the desired drug

Patients who show up an hour late for an appointment and then post a negative review stating that they were made to wait before being seen (without mentioning the fact that they were an hour late themselves)

Patients who post negative reviews about a doctor's staff without providing any useful details that might actually help the doctor to do something about the problem.

Criminals who are not even patients posting false negative reviews about doctors who testify against them in court.

Meanwhile, the doctor cannot respond to the accusations in ANY way because under the privacy laws, the doctor cannot even publically acknowledge that an individual is their patient.

I can only imagine the sort of abuse a psychiatrist would get from delusional patients on a site like this.

It's about time that some doctors stand up to this sort of abuse.

All this talk about people's rights under Free Speech. What about the right of the doctor to face their accuser? I guess that constitutional rights only apply for some, but not others?

Here are more examples that have to do with this site:

"Fired employees posting MANY negative reviews about their former employer pretending to be a patient"
-Current employees, friends, family members, or even the doctors themselves posting MANY positive reviews about the doctor pretending to be a patient

"Patients who aren't happy with their (correct) diagnosis making accusations of malpractice against their physician"
-Patients who aren't happy with their (INCORRECT) diagnosis making accusations of incompetence against their physician

"Patients who show up an hour late for an appointment and then post a negative review stating that they were made to wait before being seen (without mentioning the fact that they were an hour late themselves)"
-Patients who are forced to wait an hour for an appointment and then post a negative review stating that they were made to wait. I have seen many doctors and they are usually never on time themselves. I still make sure to give them good reviews online if they are competent...some docs are worth the wait and I forgive them!

"Patients who post negative reviews about a doctor's staff without providing any useful details that might actually help the doctor to do something about the problem."
-Doctors who enforce gag orders so patients can't provide specific details.

"Criminals who are not even patients posting false negative reviews about doctors who testify against them in court."
-Friends of doctors, family members, or doctors themselves posting false positive reviews about doctors to promote their business

"I can only imagine the sort of abuse a psychiatrist would get from delusional patients on a site like this."
-I've looked up and rated some of the best doctors I know and they got perfect reviews (not only on RateMD but on other sites). I may have had a tragic experience with Dr. Samuel Lam, but I have given good reviews for good doctors who were honest with me and did good work.

"What about the right of the doctor to face their accuser? I guess that constitutional rights only apply for some, but not others?"
-You do realize that it is the PATIENT who is the one who may get operated on or cut up...do you not? If I am a patient and someone is going to cut me open....you BET I WANT TO KNOW THAT DOCTORS HISTORY. BOTH GOOD AND BAD CASES. It is MY body and MY life thats at stake here.... Patients are the ones who are getting cut up!

Ummmm, no. If they are spamming the site, those ratings *probably* aren't going to last long. We have some excellent defensive measures in place against that sort of thing. However, if you do believe that someone's ratings have been skewed one way or another, please let the webmaster know. I'm sure he will look into it.

::dryly::Right. And doctors who don't like their ratings blame them on patients who disagree with their diagnosis. That is, when they aren't attributing those ratings to delusional patients and convicts.

Gee I wonder how far that gets them? If you really caved under that threat, then you deserve bad ratings.

There are always going to be people who do things like this. Not just with ratings, not just to doctors, but in all ways and all walks of life.

Fair point, however, the the other patients and prospective patients who see that review aren't likely to give it a lot of weight for that very reason.

People who are truly pissed off at a doctor aren't often content with posting just one rating. They want to destroy that doctor the only way they know how. But, again, the site has some excellent defensive measures in place that take care of this sort of spam.

Chris, Twain and Harley can (and I'm sure they will) correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that doctors CAN respond to ratings so long as they DO NOT identify the patient or give details about that person's case. If I am wrong, great! I've got a doc who has responded to one of MY ratings and if he wasn't allowed to, then he's got some 'splaining to do.

Delusional patients are every bit as entitled voice their opinions about their doctors on this website. So long as they don't do so repeatedly. Keep in mind: If they are truly delusional then their ratings probably won't be believable nor will they be given much credence by prospective patients.

Sure, go ahead. But don't expect to do so unopposed.

You are allowed to face your accuser in a court of law. The Constitution (or, more accurately, The Bill of Rights) says nothing about having the right to face them in any other venue.

Katherine

There have been numerous suggestions, ad nauseum, at creating a website for rating patients. Perhaps island-doc would like to register and create a website at RateMyPatient.com.

And any doctor posting would be charged with violating the privacy laws and probably successfully sued as well, gee what a wonderful idea.

Well then, you're complaining to the wrong audience.

Perhaps all you really need to do is to construct a site where the docs are anonymous, and the patients are named, but WITHOUT disclosing any medical or treatment history, discussing only generalities, such as compliance, being on time, double doctoring, etc.

A patient's medical history is private, no matter which way you slice it, but perhaps their conduct should be "in".

island-doc wrote:
It's about time that some doctors stand up to this sort of abuse.

Think about it doc - the medical profession has held ALL the cards
for over 100 years doncha know
Patients' rights have been fairly hidden during the past
because they held all the cards.
Now....the internet is the new communication medium and a virtual
library .. So yes, we all must deal with its ramifications but also
celebrate its opportunities for expansion of public knowledge.

Patients have had rights for many years but the med profession has
never been a promoter of those rights. Just last week I had a
neighbor ask me - how can I know what is in my medical records??
She did NOT have a clue that she had any right to request them and
once told - she was so fearful of alienating her dr.
I think that is pitiful! The only person except myself who could
have informed her of her rights is her DOCTOR - and that was
never done-

So we are still coming out of the dark ages. People have been
verbally rating their mechanics, hair dressers, plumbers, painters,
carpenters etc for years AND their doctors too.

Drs. just didn't read about it on the internet but the SAME
results applied. They rated drs. VERBALLY to each other and
many WENT to a dr. based on a good opinion.
As for the poor opinions they can decide to just not
go to that dr. So not much has changed...

What the drs. are screaming about is the sheer volume
of people READING a person's opinion that is the problem here -
Complaining drs. do NOT consider the fact that a HIGHER
percentage of ratings are GOOD - not POOR.
So maybe quitcherbitchin ????

are you a physician? i am an rn and i wouldn't want anyone telling lies about me on the internet and not be able to respond and feel like my reputation was destroyed over nothing. but, i know with my physician, i have not been able to express my frustrations anywhere else. it's almost stupid to file a complaint with the board of physicians if he hasn't killed anyone. md's get a slap on the wrist and then go on ruining people's lives. so many of them have a God complex and no compassion and that is not a good mixture. if md's got the treatment that nurses do when a complaint is filed, then maybe there wouldn't be a need for sites like this. there are many good hearted and conscientous docs but there are so many that are there for the buck and truly don't care what they do to people. they should be held accountable.

Boy would i accept a chance to stand up and personally face Dr Harold G french, in this forum or any public forum.
There's not much doubt that he comes to this site...problem is he hides behind his (handle) he and everyone here knows my name.
Dr's Hide in here just as much!! Island Doc whoever you are.

Teri

Any document can be amended or changed, as agreed upon by the executing parties. It is done all the time. Without
seeing the actual document, my assumption is they want you to agree to arbitrate and not sue for any wrong doings that
may happen from care in their facility. The patient financial rep is using pretty strong language especially to a paying
customer. Can they really refuse care on that basis? There are federal laws about treatment rendering. Does this
happen in public and private hospitals in Florida?

If you are concerned about signing the release for arbitration, I would spend a few bucks and talk to a lawyer that does
not have a retainer to the hospitals to find out where you stand. I am not a lawyer but it would be interesting to see if
these hospitals get challenged in court. I personally see this as a type of gag order from the hospitals.

Igg: Florida Hospital also has written in their employee handbook for physicians that it is against hospital policy for any physician to speak out against another staff physician.........ever, and to do so could mean loss of hospital privileges.

They are a religious organization you know,(Seventh Day Adventist), claiming "not for profit" and so paying no taxes.

Doctors:

First do no harm

Thou shalt not tell

I don't know about where everyone else lives, but in California, I have refused to sign documents I did not agree with. Even when staff members have returned to shove them back in my face 'Oh you forgot to sign this', I would again make my position clear - I'm not signing. I was not refused treatment.

There are some documents that are just not enforcable in order to receive service. This being one of them.

In all fairness, it's been a long time since I challanged any documents and refused to sign. Today, perhaps a doctor can refuse to treat if the documents are not signed. Things could have quite possibly gotten even more crazy.

The worse abuse I ever saw was 35 years ago when a hospital employee held the hand of a patient being discharged to friends because he was so drugged up he was barely conscious and, while holding his hand, made him sign his name to an agreement to pay. He didn't sign, the hospital employee made the signature while holding his hand! He had no idea what was going on at the time.

Forcing patients to sign a 'gag' agreement or no treatment is taking away even more recourse the patient may have is the doctor is inept or 'shady'. That's coercion and undue influence.

In case no one noticed, the government signed into law additional protections for doctors. So these 'gag agreements' shouldn't even be necessary.

When I was in labor with my first child, alone because my husband was out of town, and in extreme pain, I was handed a clip board and asked to sign documents. I was ready to throw myself out the window because of the pain, and she's asking me to sign papers! I couldn't even hold the pen; I was in so much pain. I literally scribbled an illegible signature. The nurse gave me a disgusted look.

Our latest addition:

Dr. Ryan Haygood
Shreveport, LA
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/107003

Hi! I am new to this site & like it very much. I think it's very helpful & informative.
Regarding the comment above, I don't know if it is exactly 'blackmailing', that seems a strong word, but I do know that doctors put down certain things in their notes that are not so nice. Once I had a doctor put down in my record that I was 'not compliant' because he did a gyn exam & I was in so much pain he could not proceed with the test. Another time, I had an alcohol problem & was treated in the hospital's alcohol center; this was a problem because whenever I saw another doctor at that hospital, they would find out that I previously had an alcohol problem and would very easily dismiss my physical issue (even telling me I had pych problems, one doctor said I was a druggie, wouldn't treat me). I don't even go to that hospital anymore because every time I had a problem, I kept running into the same attitude (them looking at my past history & judging me based on that instead of just objectively looking at my symptoms).
It does seem that they are allowed to make 'comments' between themselves and on our medical record and we as patients are completely powerless to do anything about it.
I complained to my state's medical board, they told me doctors are allowed to be rude, just go to another doctor; he didn't harm you.
I don't think that's fair. A doctor can literally say anything he wants about you in his own records (based on his perception), and we as patients can't do anything about that. It's only fair that we should be able to come here and tell other prospective patients our perception of a doctor and how we were treated.

I have to counter with the fact that some doctors also are very innacurate with their diagnosis and this causes problems, the patient though, cannot get their money back from the doctor and cannot just wipe out the medical records of that doctor, either.
It is a shame that some patients will abuse this site, but that's reality. Just like doctors abuse some patients and get away with it. At least you have the option of having the comment removed. If a patient is dealing with a bad doctor or a bad outcome, they often don't have any recourse at all...except to maybe warn other patients.
I also have to say that I have found reviews that are ALL positive. This sounds suspicious to me. I would be suspicious of a doctor that has a COMPLETELY POSITIVE review. Usually at least one or two patients would not like the doctor, that would be expected. But when a doctor has complete 5's from over 20 people, it is hard to believe. I think in these cases, some staff from the doctor's office are maybe putting in the reviews.

It is easy to claim that someone is paranoid, but if you read my earlier post, I did provide proof. It is even easier now because most doctor's offices are computerized, they can easily put things in the computer and not have it go into the regular medical record. Just like pharmacists put 'notes' on certain patients (where the patients can't see them), so that they know which 'patients' are a problem, etc.
If you seriously think that once a person is on the operating table and doctor's do not make remarks about that person's body, you are in serious denial.
They do indeed snicker to each other behind closed doors and share 'crazy patient' stories with each other---let's not kid ourselves.
They also make sick comments when a patient is on an operating table (commenting on body size, attractiveness, etc.).

Here is a *doctor's account* of being mistreated while coming out of anesthesia:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5771086&page=1

Dr Nudrat Rashid threatened defamation for mentioning ratemds.

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/889731/Dr-Nudrat-Rashid-Sydney-NSW.html

and strangely.. Dr Talat Uppal for threatening people on Dr Nudrat Rashids behalf (??)

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/963079/Dr-Talat-Uppal-Manly-NSW.html

Our latest addition:
Dr. Chris Tye
Colleyville, TX
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/173014

One of these days they are going to learn not to threaten you with a lawsuit. LOL!

PJS

I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but it's an interesting one. I think there are two sides to the story HOWEVER

There have been MANY reputable websites that do nothing but post the facts about doctors sanctions, lawsuits, reprimands, etc. that have effectively been shut down my the medical professionals on the grounds that it prejudicial. Well, duh, if my doctor has been sued thirty times and lost or been sactioned by the AMA, of course I wouldn't use him or her. That's the point.

The AMA spends millions making sure we don't know the truth about doctors. That should be illegal.

Hi pamj,

Can you give any examples of websites that were shut down? I hadn't heard of this before and it would be good to know.
Thanks,

John

PJS

I honestly wish I could remember the names of them, but, hey, I'm almost 50 so that's my excuse. I belonged to two of them several years back that listed lawsuits, sanctions, etc. and offered NO personal opinion information, just the facts. They were both forced to shut down.

What's really funny is I'm currently watching a 48 hours show about doctors who have been sued multiple times or had their medical licenses revoked in one state but now practice in another. One DOCTOR actually commented that you can get more information on a car you're buying than a doctor you go to. The federal government and each state keeps track of all this information, but the AMA spends millions attempting to block patient access to the information, calling it prejudicial. Well, duh!!!!!! If my doctor has been sued 10 times, I'm probably going to look for another doctor. When I lived in Florida, the state released the names of all doctors who were sanctioned by the licensing board three times or more. All the local papers published them every year. That's a good thing, but not enough states are doing this.

John, I think this may give an idea of what once was.

In the mid-1980s, incompetent and negligent doctors were moving freely between states, with state licensing boards and hospitals largely oblivious to lawsuits or disciplinary actions in other locations that might have flagged bad providers.

In response, Congress passed the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, which created the National Practitioner Data Bank, a repository of information that includes malpractice payments, license revocations and loss of clinical privileges for physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and other professionals . “The NPDB is primarily an alert or flagging system intended to facilitate a comprehensive review of health care practitioners’ professional credentials,” says the Department of Health and Human Services, which maintains it.

Members of the public can access statistical portions of the NPDB. Thanks to lobbying by the American Medical Association, however, the law blocks public users from pulling up histories of individual doctors or other health care professionals. Only authorized users such as hospital administrators can do that. A physician can see only his or her own record.

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/database-of-bad-doctors-blocks-public-from-seeing-names-.html

Also: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/govt-database-bad-doctors-blocks-public-seeing-names

I'm working with a couple of doctors to do online marketing, and they're definitely aware of this website.

I tell all of my clients, doctors or not, that managing their online reputation is something they must do. That doesn't mean trying to hide bad reviews or get them removed, it involves responding to any concerns their customers have broached in whatever way possible. With the advent of Google Local, Yelp, LinkedIn, Facebook, and other sites it is trivial for customers to complain or laud service providers. I think this new level of information is great both personally and professionally.

If you're in business you will end up having customers that have bad experiences, it's just a question of how you deal with that. Openness and transparency go a long way.

The thing I like least about RateMDs compared to some of these other sites is that comments can be made completely anonymously rather than pseudo-anonymously, with a low likelihood that the original rater will see a response. If my client's customer posts a scathing review and doesn't provide specifics, how do we respond? I understand it is challenging and awkward to talk directly to someone you're unhappy with, and I absolutely think sites like this have their place, however for a doctor genuinely wanting to improve their practice and address complaints RateMDs doesn't do a very good job of facilitating that. RateMDs suggests ratings be polite, detailed and helpful (presumably both for potential new customers as well as the MDs themselves), however there are many ratings that are none of those.

It would be helpful if there was more attention put into qualifying reviews, like how Amazon does this (showing how many reviews a given person has made, and what they are, allowing 'RealNames' at the reviewers option, etc), or the way Yelp does it (also exposing what other reviews a given person has given, allowing other people to rate the reviews as well) and in both cases attaching an identity to the reviews, even if it's a pseudo-anonymous one. I know as a consumer I'd certainly get more value out of knowing that a given reviewer has given horrible reviews to every doctor they've seen, or had a bad experience with one neurologist and a great experience with another.

Cheers,
Leif Jason |

[link removed from signature by moderator]

Our latest proud inductee to the RateMDs Wall of Shame:

Dr. Bret Tobler
Lehi, UT
http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/2724981

Wow. This guy got his panties in a wad over ONE rating?