Skip to main content

 

Politics Are Key Factor in Policy Progress

As we approach the culmination of the biannual event known as “the most important election of our lifetime,” it is an opportune moment to assess what this election has in store with regard to the medical professional liability community.

Addressing Medical Damages in a Destabilized Healthcare Environment

Join us for a new webinar on Tuesday, September 23, at 12:30 p.m. (ET). Free for members and partners!

The MPL Association Elects Board Chair and Appoints Officers

J. Michael Conerly, MD, FACS, MBA, President and Chief Executive Officer of LAMMICO, has been selected to serve as the Association’s Chair of the Board of Directors.

 

International Perspective

Dentist Wins Against Negative Google Review


By Prue Campbell


Editor’s Note: The Medical Indemnity Protection Society, MIPS, in Melbourne, Australia, recently published the case of a periodontist who went to court to have negative Google reviews removed. The case discusses the process and implications of negative Google reviews on dental professionals.

A dentist has been successful in her defamation claim against a patient who posted negative Google reviews. This article provides some insight on how to better protect yourself, your staff, and your practice from negative reviews online.

The Background

Dr. Dean, a well-known periodontist in Melbourne, commenced proceedings against Ms. Puleio alleging that she defamed her in four publications on Google reviews of Dr. Dean’s business, Kew Periodontics and Dental Implants (Kew Periodontics).

Ms. Puleio was a patient at Kew Periodontics and attended three appointments. As a result of Ms. Puleio’s manner and many cancelled appointments, Dr. Dean terminated the doctor/patient relationship.

After the termination of the doctor/patient relationship, Ms. Puleio posted the first Google review, which accused Dr. Dean of being unprofessional, undermining, failing to diagnose various illnesses from which Ms. Puleio said she was suffering, trying to charge unreasonably for work, making ludicrous suggestions as to treatments, and being someone who bullies and berates her patients.

The second Google review stated that Kew Periodontics provided “unprofessional and undermining service.” This review was removed and replaced with a third Google review that reiterated the second Google review and added that Dr. Dean had “apologized for the negligence” of her care and that the “outcome was unsatisfactory.”

The fourth Google review reiterated the third review and continued for a number of paragraphs indicating that Dr. Dean was unethical and had callously refused to treat Ms. Puleio when she was in urgent need of treatment.

The Outcome

Ms. Puleio, representing herself, had her defense struck, and judgment was entered for Dr. Dean on the basis of non-compliance with Court orders. Consequently, having failed to file a Defense, the matters in the Statement of Claim were taken to be admitted, including liability for publication, the serious imputations to be drawn from the publication, and their defamatory nature.



Evidence was submitted that the fourth Google review had been viewed at least 1,300 times, and it was likely that somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 people had viewed the extract of the review that stated Kew Periodontics provided “unprofessional and undermining service.” It was further accepted that the “grapevine effect” meant that it was likely the impact of the publications would have spread beyond those people who saw the actual page.

Other evidence included a distinct downturn in average weekly page views on the website of Kew Periodontics and new patient referrals in the immediate aftermath of the publications.

The court acknowledged that while Kew Periodontics would have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was still likely that there was some impact from the negative reviews.

The court accepted that the publications had damaged Dr. Dean’s reputation amongst her peers and in the eyes of the broader community.

There was also evidence of the impact of the publication on Dr. Dean’s wellbeing.

To the extent it was necessary, given that judgment had been entered, the court found the publications carried the imputations alleged by Dr. Dean, and those imputations were defamatory and untrue.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court awarded damages in the amount of $170,000, including for aggravated damages on the basis of Ms. Puleio’s conduct in that:

  1. She published the statements with the sole purpose of harming Dr. Dean’s reputation
  2. She refused to apologize
  3. She refused to take down the review
  4. She attempted to extract additional money from Dr. Dean
  5. She had revisited and revised the review to inaccurately reflect the content of negotiations
  6. She threatened to report Dr. Dean to medical and other unspecified authorities
  7. She accused Dr. Dean of blackmail and unethical conduct

The Implications

This case is another example of the recent rise of Google review defamation cases in Australia.

Practitioners adversely impacted by negative reviews bring such proceedings in order to have the reviews removed. However, launching a defamation action is cost-prohibitive for most healthcare professionals.

This case also demonstrates that evidence of reduction in internet traffic on a business’s website and patient referrals may be sufficient to demonstrate loss or harm suffered from a negative and defamatory online review.

To read the decision, visit the County Court of Victoria website: Dean v Puleio [2021]


 
 Prue Campbell is a Senior Associate at Panetta McGrath in Perth, Australia.
Practitioners adversely impacted by negative reviews bring such proceedings in order to have the reviews removed. However, launching a defamation action is cost-prohibitive for most healthcare professionals.