Dentist and reviewer battle it out in court
Yvonne Wong, D.D.S., sued the parents of a
young patient after the father posted a negative review on Yelp.com. Dr. Wong
contends that the review defames her by implying that she didn't inform the
boy's parents about alternatives to the use of amalgam and nitrous oxide and
didn't spot other cavities needing treatment.
The key issue in this case is whether the
review stepped over the line from discussing a topic of public interest to
defamation.
Dr. Wong's lawyer, John Ter Beek, thinks it
does.
He argued that the review did not serve
public interest on the topics of amalgam or nitrous oxide use and only defamed
Dr. Wong.
He called the use of amalgam fillings a
"supposed controversy" and noted that even the ADA approves its use.
Reviewer Tai Jing's lawyer, Mark Goldowitz,
argued that his client's review merely informed people that it is unnecessary
to use mercury or nitrous oxide for dental procedures. It is a matter of public
interest because his clients did not know other options were available until they
went to another dentist, he stated.
In an interview with DrBicuspid.com
following his court appearance, Ter Beek said that in fact Dr. Wong provided
Jing's wife with a dental material fact sheet containing information about
mercury fillings. The law requires dentists to discuss such matters, he added.
"Now they are saying that they were
not told," said Ter Beek. "This is defamation. If people are allowed
to do this, you might as well throw away the defamation law."
Goldowitz reiterated that his client's
review did not cross the line.
His purpose as a parent through that post
was to tell other people that some dentists don't use amalgam fillings or
nitrous oxide at all, he told DrBicuspid.com.
Defamation is when provably false
statements are made, and that is not the case here, he added.
There is a controversy surrounding amalgam
fillings, and new cavities were found by the child's new dentist, he said. It's
all true.
With regard to the issue of defamation,
Judge William Elfving asked Goldowitz to clarify exactly who wrote the review,
since both Tai Jing and his wife Jia Ma are named in Dr. Wong's lawsuit.
Goldowitz stated that Jing wrote the review and that his wife had no part in it
whatsoever.
However, Ter Beek noted that Jia Ma
accompanied the child to most of the dental appointments and that when she came
home she had told Jing what happened, which means they worked together to
defame the dentist.
Goldowitz dismissed any charges of
conspiracy.
Jing was the one who was present at the
appointment when Dr. Wong administered the nitrous oxide and mercury fillings,
and there is no reason to believe that just because they are married she was
involved in a conspiracy, he said.
Jing ultimately removed the review from
Yelp.com -- leave a one star rating up to indicate his dissatisfaction with the
dentist -- when he found out that someone had complained because he did not
want to be mixed up in a controversy, his lawyer told DrBicuspid.com.
Goldowitz said this case violates free
speech.
"That you can get sued just for
putting up your opinion has a chilling effect," he said.
Judge Elfving is now considering the
arguments. If he doesn't grant the original anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit
against public participation) motion, Dr. Wong's attorney will have a right to
appeal. If he does approve it, Jing's attorney will have the same right.
