God bless America and the right to sue for anything and everything under the sun.

At least this isn't as bad as the "I spilled my coffee and burnt my myself so now I'm going to sue you for making the coffee hot" case.

If you look up the coffee case, you'll find that it was, in fact, extraordinarily hot and completely capable of causing burns...not a normal thing for a cup of coffee. Ralph Nader spoke of that case a lot.

In this instance, the dentist admits that the fillings had mercury...saying that the patient's mother "should have read the disclosure" doesn't change that fact. The mother is allowed to publicize that in a review. People can go in forewarned. A single one-star review isn't going to kill someone's career...if that were so, there are a lot of movie actors who would never have made any money!

If the dentist doesn't want people thinking she uses mercury in her fillings, than she can stop using mercury in her fillings. The mother has every right to disclose that fact to other patients online. It isn't libel or lies if you admit that it is true.

freedom of speech.

Like kastarte said the mother went on the site and told the truth.

now this is ridiculous. This suing people left and right is getting out of control

This is interesting. Just the other day I was at my long-time dentist (whom I LOVE) and I told her that I had read some great reviews about her on yelp when I googled her to find her office number. And she seemed weary. She said she doesn't like the online reviews because you can't ever take them down and she knew a colleague who got negative reviews.

I told her that I thought the dentist/restaurant owner/hairdresser could respond to the reviews. I think that's the most important part. If people can RESPOND to the critiques and that the people critiquing cannot do some anonymously. If both of those are not met, then I think people should have the right to get upset.

Sue for everything... I'd be broke if it were possible to sue for every time I've told a friend about an awful experience with an orthopedic doctor or physical therapist.

I don't care what anyone says about Stella Liebeck. There is no way to defend the fact that she was awarded (but didn't actually receive, due to appeals, etc.) $2.9 million for spilling coffee on herself.

Oh, and I think a lawsuit over a blatantly false negative online review would have merit, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Regardless of the legality, it seems like a poor business decision to sue someone over a bad online review. Way to bring more attention to it and to bring yourself negative publicity.

A much better idea would have been to ask other customers to leave online reviews for you if they were happy.

Or you could get on the site and relpy to the negative review. Something like: "We're sorry you had a bad experience. We would like to make things right. Please call our office so we can discuss this matter." Or just call the patient if they list their full name.

Actually, lilkimbo, Stella wasn't the only one that complained about McDonald's coffee. For a long while people had complained about the fact that the coffee temperature was WELL beyond reasonable (including the health dept.) and when the coffee was spilled ON HER it gave her 3rd degree burns.

There's a lot more to a story than one misinformed sentence.

For the record, if you have a silver filling, it has mercury in it. It has proven to be safe in such small quantities. I think that is what the dentist is referencing to, like she is making out to seem that dentist shouldn't use those fillings. Like this doctor is doing something wrong. I would like to think that this doctor made an attempt to right things. I could be wrong. But people do throw willy-nilly comments around on the internet without proof. I know someone here in my area who was sued and lost because they wrote something on their car windows. Similar to this. Court said it is libel if it is written.

Liz, it's interesting that you would assume I am misinformed. I actually did a case study on this story in undergrad, and I still believe (and the judge obviously did, too) that $2.9 million was an exorbitant amount.

I would appreciate it if you didn't assume based on one post that I am misinformed.

And, when she spilled it on her, she sat in it for almost two minutes, which was a big part of why she got the third degree burns.

I don't know. I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Like I can go online and say, "Anne Hathaway is a horrible actress" but should I be sued because I might have impacted her career by impacting others' opinion of her?

And, other judges have dismissed cases claiming that the coffee served at McDonald's was beyond reasonable. In fact, in all of the cases involving McDonald's coffee and other coffee served at around at the same temperature, Liebeck's was the only one that wasn't dismissed. (Although, some others were settled out of court before they had the chance to be dismissed.)

"Regardless of the legality, it seems like a poor business decision to sue someone over a bad online review. Way to bring more attention to it and to bring yourself negative publicity."

agreed

Actually keiren, I'm well aware of the facts of the McDonald's coffee case (lilkimbo - I guess we're both being accused of ignorance today).

Liebec attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee while balancing the cup between her legs. If the temperature of the cup was truly too hot, she would have felt the heat through the paper cup and her cotton pants.

Moral of the story:
1. Coffee is hot.
2. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.

I drink coffee. Actually, I drink a lot of coffee (probably too much) and I have occasionally burned my mouth, but I've never tried to sue anyone over it. Notice how I burned my mouth and not my legs: I have enough common sense not to use my legs as a table.

Anyway, enough thread hijacking... Back to the main discussion.

I would never want to discourage people from publicizing inadequate or unsatisfactory medical care. Unless the reviews were actually lies (which it seems they were not), then I think it's a good thing they were posted. It sounds like an excellent way to promote consumer safety.

My previous job had a negative review on Yelp and while it didn't actually effect their business, it was posted on every single other feedback site and ended up being the first 5 things that came up under a Google search of the company.

Their representative ended up responding to the reviews in order to defend the company.

I definitely think people should be allowed to voice their opinions of a company, but not if they're posting complete lies and misinformation (which in the case of my previous employer it was).

As far as the dentist is concerned, suing and bringing attention to the negative review was probably not the best thing to do.

"I would never want to discourage people from publicizing inadequate or unsatisfactory medical care. Unless the reviews were actually lies (which it seems they were not), then I think it's a good thing they were posted. It sounds like an excellent way to promote consumer safety."

Yes, exactly, Mich!

The dentist has every right to respond to the critique and make his case. That's the downside and the upside of the internet; criticisms reach more people, but you can respond to them. For this case to be libel, it must be untrue. Doesn't sound like it is.

Ummm what the lady said about her son being light headed and getting mercury fillings is true, and I don't think the dentist should be suing for libel what she is stating is fact. What I do think is someone at child protective services needs to check on this lady and make sure is is okay, how do you not know what kind of dental procedures are being performed on your child prior to them being done? I mean the dentist has a point, it was the mothers job to read the information regarding treatment.

If it actually were a lie, than yeah it's libel but she was telling the truth

Wow, I think the dentist just ruined her own career. It was one review on a website I've never heard of. Now, she has gone and sued her patients making it national news. That's rather negative publicity now. What person in need of a dentist is going to go to her now if she doesn't win her case?