Live data from Hacker News

A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

latimes.com

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Doctor responded directly to my review, calling me out by name and essentially calling me a liar (I wasn't) That seems likely it would violate HIPAA in some way...

We have a plastic surgeon, in in my county, that pissed off a lot of patients. She must have over 50 negative reviews. Well she sued most of them. I think the lawyer sued 45 of them. The judge ruled against all the lawsuits. All thrown out of court. Now, the physician resorts to describing what was physically wrong with the patient online in a rebuttal. For instance, "Susan--you seemed happy when we removed those ugl…

The practice of medicine has always been an art, notwithstanding availability of advanced diagnostic and treatment technologies. Of course it's an art based in science. However, in truth, the science is not fully developed in many if not most disorders, leaving providers to try to help with the limited tools at their disposal.

Providing care is finding the delicate balance among sciences and arts, inevitably there are ambiguous tests, marginally effective treatments, rare/impossible to predict side-effects and frequent backtracking to try yet another option. Some patients will misconstrue this less than ideal algorithm as mistreatment even when informed it represents the imperfect state of the art.

Certain perfectionistic individuals make unrealistic demands of care providers and may complain bitterly about less than optimum outcomes. Most patients aren't like that, but a few are. The notion that patients are "treated like dirt" these days is an unreasonably broad assertion that shouldn't be accepted without substantial evidence.

No doubt there are occasional providers who are less than competent, notably unempathetic, mean-spirited, etc. There are ways to complain if it's warranted, medical societies and licensing bodies take these complaints very seriously. But by all means such instances deserve fair and dispassionate investigation.

It may be hard to tell which Yelp "reviews" are authentic, and which may be authored by family members or friends just to rack up bad opinion about the doctor, or against any other service for that matter.

OTOH it is unethical for a doctor to reveal anything about the patient without specific permission. I suppose write a review of the doctor's work is a tacit permission to respond, but it is always the patient's right to reveal info, but the doctor is limited in what can be said.

That may be a reason health care providers are skittish about Yelp and the like. Because of confidentiality rules, ethical practitioners can't defend themselves against exaggerated, erroneous or even false claims made in a public listing. Anyone taking Yelp "reviews" seriously is probably accepting bad advice especially when it comes to seeking services as complex and nuanced as medical care.

The arena of "reviews" by disgruntled customers seems like it's just starting to be explored by the courts. Physicians' organizations and licensing boards haven't yet addressed the questions about responding to unfair or inaccurate statements about physician or health care services. I imagine those discussions will indeed be lively.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#52
post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It happens because the US, unlike pretty much any other civilized country, does not have the so called "English Rule".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...

This is unlikely to change as the trial lawyers have enormous power and sway over at least one of the 2 major political parties. Pretty much any politician who has attempted to change this has been destroyed.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you have e.g. Uber using that backlash effect as the core part of their business strategy, turning people against their governments to ensure a market for themselves. And then you have tobacco companies suing countries for anti-smoking laws, because fuck it, why not. And then you have corporations playing states and countries off each other by getting them to compete over jobs with tax breaks. So no, nation…

> And then you have e.g. Uber using that backlash effect as the core part of their business strategy, turning people against their governments to ensure a market for themselves. Which only works in certain parts of the world - it's not like Uber is legal in Germany or that they made a lot of friends in Sweden lately.

Sure, but certain == most of the West here, and each place where it works makes it only easier for them.

It's not like companies need to get from zero to world domination in a single step.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#54
post #3

B.S. this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.

What you are describing is a problem that exists only in the domain of Googles DMCA handling policies. The Yelp issue is in the domain of US law.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#55
post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It's called libel. Look it up. Let's say I went around telling everyone, "Wow, vinhboy just fucked my kid!". Anyone who Googles your name can see it. Your are up for a job with a $132,000 salary, but they don't hire you because they go "aren't you that guy that fucked someones kid?" or they just deny you the job silently. You can sue me and if the judge finds that there is no evidence that you actually fucked my kid, I could be sued for libel and potentially liable for the money you lost due to my actions. This is a pretty old thing, but in the internet age publishing has just been made a lot easier by many more people. The law should probably be adjusted to reflect the fact that it can be easy to get carried away and post an angry comment on the internet.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#57
One wonders if Ava Bird is actually OK. Do people often drop off the grid like that and fail to respond to court papers &c?

UK: I suspect the legal situation is a bit more complex here (it usually is), so perhaps the title should be 'most important law in the US'?

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#58
post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It happens because the US, unlike pretty much any other civilized country, does not have the so called "English Rule". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f... This is unlikely to change as the trial lawyers have enormous power and sway over at least one of the 2 major political parties. Pretty much any politician who has attempted to change this has been destroyed.

How is this relevant?

It seems the parent comment was primarily shocked by the size of the damages, which are not affected by the rule (or would if anything be larger with the English rule, if you want to include legal fees under damages).

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#59
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how default judgements have always been. The person ignored their chance to plead their side of the case, and thus they don't get a say in what the damages are ordered, and the only figures the court has are what the plaintiff asked for. If you don't want to have the exhorbitant amounts usually asked for in an initial suit, show up to court.

> If you don't want to have the exhorbitant amounts usually asked for in an initial suit, show up to court. That's not reasonable. If the person for whatever reason doesn't show up, but it is a company vs a person lawsuit, then granting everything doesn't make any sense. There could be various reasons why the person didn't show up.

So how does your system work? Tortfeasors can just get out of damages by not showing up?

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#60
post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It's called libel. Look it up. Let's say I went around telling everyone, "Wow, vinhboy just fucked my kid!". Anyone who Googles your name can see it. Your are up for a job with a $132,000 salary, but they don't hire you because they go "aren't you that guy that fucked someones kid?" or they just deny you the job silently. You can sue me and if the judge finds that there is no evidence that you actually fucked my kid,…

> they just deny you the job silently.

This.

I've first hand witnessed several people being rejected/blocked by HR from manager positions in Fortune 100 corporations due to various internet findings.

Examples: - pictures on facebook showing the applicant vomiting due to drinking too much, noone wants to risk hiring an alcoholic - search result connecting the applicant to a cult, - search result showing applicant posting negative opinions about immigration - search result showing applicant being open with bdsm sex related activities

The applicants were not given the chance to discuss these issues with HR, they were just silently rejected. I think this is very common as it exposes the company to risk if there is a discussion and the candidate is later rejected. If there is no discussion, there is no proof. When hiring for any position which is customer facing, corporate HR is incredibly sensitive how the applicant is displayed on the internet.

Posting anything on the internet about anyone is extremely powerful today and it doesn't matter if it is true or not since you will not have any way to defend yourself.

Post reply on HN