Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Medicine The Courts

Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight 260

Posted by timothy
from the my-current-dentist-has-been-nice-so-far dept.
According to a report at Ars Technica, a dentist named Stacy Makhnevich, who billed herself as "the Classical Singer Dentist of New York," threatened patients who wrote bad Yelp reviews with lawsuits, along the same lines as the online dental damage-control outlined in a different Ars story in 2011. This time, though, there's something even stranger than bargaining with patients to forgo criticism: when a patient defied that demand by describing his experience in negative terms on Yelp, Makhnevich followed up on the threat by seeking a takedown order based on copyright (putatively signed over to her for any criticism that patients might write, post-visit) — then disappeared entirely when lawyers for patient Robert Lee filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of the agreement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight

Comments Filter:
  • Finally. Nice to get a little good news in my day, even if the issue doesn't affect me directly. I firmly believe this kind of thing should happen much more often (think SCO, for just one example).
    • by whoever57 (658626)

      What if the dentist's qualifications were not proper and complete?

      • by tqk (413719)

        What if the dentist's qualifications were not proper and complete?

        In the Twenty-First Century, dentists are still drilling holes in peoples' heads. The world would be a better place if every last one of them committed suicide if that's the best they can come up with.

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday July 28, 2013 @07:44PM (#44408917)

    Who knows what's up with this dentist. But the company who provides the form paperwork is really the people that the lawyers should be going after. D. Makhnevich is only one of many many who use this company's services / products.

    Also this points out why I never pay much attention to Yelp: This dentist is rightfully getting a lot of heat over this business, but most of the "opinions" about her on Yelp are by people who have almost certainly never used her services. This is how it goes when businesses get bad publicity, everyone runs to trash them on Yelp regardless of if they have ever done business with whoever is the target.

    There are a number of other sites that specialize in doctor ratings from patient that have a significantly different score for this clown.

  • by BitterOak (537666) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:12PM (#44409035)
    What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract. According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient, but how many dentists go around spilling the beans about their patients' teeth? And are your tooth secrets that serious that you'd be willing to sign over copyright of your internet posts so your dentist will keep them? Are you really that afraid your friends will find out you don't floss regularly?
    • by Hans Lehmann (571625) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:26PM (#44409069)
      Most patients, when walking into the office of a new medical provider, are given a stack of forms to sign by a harried receptionist who expects them to just sign the paperwork and hand it back. Few people actually read them.
      • by KingMotley (944240) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:36PM (#44409131) Journal

        I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses

        • by Kell Bengal (711123) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:59PM (#44409217)
          Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
          • by hawguy (1600213)

            Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.

            I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.

            For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she

            • by oobayly (1056050) on Monday July 29, 2013 @03:38AM (#44410387)

              But in your case the clause wouldn't have been necessary as she informed you before the procedure what may actually have to be done. You could have told her that you couldn't afford the crown, so if the tooth can't support a filling just remove it (unlikely, but it's your prerogative).

            • Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.

              I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.

              For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she started the procedure, she said that after she removed the old amalgam filling and some decayed areas that there wasn't enough tooth surface support a filling, so she'd need to do a crown instead.

              I've been under an extremely similar scenario. The dentist simply removed the tools from inside my mouth, asked me if it was ok, and I replied. Way easier than signing some obscure paper ahead of time.

          • by scotts13 (1371443) on Monday July 29, 2013 @08:48AM (#44411209)

            So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back.

            I do the same, all the time. I was once asked to take a lie detector test (for, of all things, a job at Radio Shack). When I read the forms, they reserved the right to re-sell the results of the test to anyone, in perpetuity. They also denied me any right to challenge those results. I crossed out the offensive sections and handed it in. To their credit, they (the testing company) DID read my revisions, and said it wasn't worth their while to continue under those conditions. They didn't test me, and I got the job anyway.

        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @09:09PM (#44409267)

          "I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses"

          Me too. And I have a good story. You should be aware that this works both ways, and you can use it to your advantage.

          Years ago, I had to take a pee test for a pre-employment "drug screening". I have a strong philosophical objection to that practice, but I wanted the job so I did it. (I don't do that anymore, but that's another story.)

          So I got to the clinic, which specialized in doing pee tests en masse. Big waiting room, lots of chairs and people, window with a woman behind it. She handed me a form to sign on a clipboard, and I sat down and read the whole thing. And it amazed me. The form said that the clinic could tell anybody (not just the company) anything they wanted about my pee test, even if it was wrong, and I waived any right to hold them responsible in any way.

          I went up to the window and asked the woman: "Do I understand this correctly? You are in the business of doing these tests, yes?"

          "Yes"

          "But in order for you to test me, I have to waive any right to sue you or hold you responsible, even if you screw it up?"

          (Annoyed look) "It's just a standard form."

          I said "Well, I don't think it is. I think I'd like to own a business where nobody could hold me responsible for actually performing the service they pay me for. Seems like a pretty sweet deal." She looked pretty pissed off.

          I sat back down, looking it over. And on the second page of the fine print, where it said I could not hold them responsible, I penned in "Except in case of negligence."

          I signed the form and gave it back to the woman. She didn't even look at it... just signed and dated it, and threw it into the pile of papers to file.

          Hahaha. I could have written in "And I get to fuck your brother" and nobody would even have noticed. But it was just as legal a contract as anything THEY handed ME.

          • Very nice Jane, that story made me laugh. If I hadn't already commented, I would have modded you +5 funny.

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            Doesn't matter. I joined a gym (fitness club) in the 1990s. It included "access to the facilities at [location] and some facilities at other sites by agreement". They had racquetball. I asked "So, to be clear, racquetball is included, right?" "Yes" (veral contracts are legally binding in TX). So I had a signed contract that granted me access to the facilities at that location, and a verbal amendment to the contract that explicitly included racquetball. There was a 2-week cancellation period. I never
            • by Raenex (947668)

              Verbal contracts may be legally binding, but good luck proving it. Get it in writing.

              • by AK Marc (707885)
                It was in writing. There were no limitations on the services listed in the contract. The wording implied all services at the site were included in the membership.
                • by Raenex (947668) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @11:50PM (#44409835)

                  Ah, since you mentioned the verbal part I thought it was essential to your dispute. Something else has been nagging me, though, and it's your statement, "The 'bad debt' from 1991 was still on my credit report last I looked. It's 'active' and renewed for another 7 years every time it's sold from one collection agency to another."

                  That looked so rotten that I had a hard time believing it was legal, and a preliminary search shows it isn't [experian.com]:

                  "[..] Federal law requires the lender to report the original delinquency date of the account that led to charge off and any subsequent collection efforts. The original delinquency date is the date from which the seven year period is measured.

                  The original account and any subsequent collection accounts are deleted seven years from the original delinquency date. Because each account must include the original delinquency date, none should return to your credit history. [..]"

                  • by AK Marc (707885)
                    I agree with you. That's not how collection agencies roll. They are evil. It was more for background.

                    And yes, I contested the appearance on my credit report once, and the agency (no I don't remember which I challenged it on), and it was found to be "valid". The "validation" is sending a message to the claimed debt holder and asking if it's valid. There's no actual verification of the original debt. The system is broken. The only winning move is not to play.

                    They reported it as a "new" debt under the
                    • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Monday July 29, 2013 @12:30AM (#44409953)

                      I can't count the number of threats of law suits a $400 debt got me.

                      Something similar happened to me and it bugged the heck out of me until I finally had a flash of insight. The collection agency was always willing to threaten me with "We have a recording of our last conversation. Would you like me to play it back for you?"

                      One day they threatened to sue. I replied "You promise?" The collection troll didn't understand. "If you sue me, then we get to go in front of a judge who will force you to shut up long enough for me to explain why I don't owe any money. I want you to sue me."

                      "Well, we will."

                      "OK. Just remember, you promised."

                      They called me a couple of times after that. I reminded them of the fact that they had promised to sue me and I was waiting to be served papers to appear in court. I also reminded them that they had a recording of them promising to sue me.

                      They hung up on me a couple of times and then I never heard from them or anyone else about it again.

                    • by AK Marc (707885) on Monday July 29, 2013 @01:08AM (#44410083)
                      Troll the trollers. Honed on Slashdot, used on collections agents.

                      I've never heard so many lies from anyone other than collections. I managed to stump them by asking them to send me an itemized bill. "I'll pay it if you can bill me for it" But all they had was that they bought some IOU off someone else who had bought it from someone else... So they had no idea of what I owned for what. $20 for pencil, $350 in fees, interest, and penalties. Nope, it was $400 - best guess as to a debt amount. Begging them to send me a written bill for what I owe so I can pay it got them confused and shut them up.
                    • "I managed to stump them by asking them to send me an itemized bill."

                      This.

                      In the past I have done the same thing, more than once. I was getting annoyed by letters from some collection agency in some other state, claiming I owed X dollars. I had no idea what for... it simply said I owed, and identified it by a "case number". Nothing else.

                      I wrote them back and reminded them that the law in my state required them to send me an itemized statement, including what they original debt was for, to whom, and that any fees, etc. must be reasonable and also itemized.

                      I didn't he

                    • by AK Marc (707885)

                      Another quite legitimate thing you can often do, is send them a letter telling them that while their claim is very nice, you simply prefer to deal with the other principle party in the transaction (i.e., whoever it is you actually owe money to). In the vast majority of cases, you have the legal right to settle the debt with the original party, collection agencies and their "fees" bedamned.

                      My wife was a student at Alaska Pacific University when we met (I was also a student there). She ended up not paying her last semester. They sent it to collections (not just 30 days, but some time after, I think it was over a year). I was still a student there, and I tried to pay them on her behalf. "I'm sorry, once we've sent it to collections, you must deal with the collections agency." I have no idea what the law was, I just walked out, and she still owes it 5 years later, and they'll never get their

                    • You have a legal right to settle the debt with the original party, unless you signed that right away somewhere. Sometimes that is a clause somewhere on a form that you signed. But if you didn't, they can't legally force you to settle that debt with some 3rd party.
                    • I'll elaborate a little:

                      One of the most basic principles of contract law is that there must be agreement between the parties. Therefore, nobody can legally obligate you to some 3rd party, without your prior consent.

                      So if it doesn't say in your contract that the debt can be assigned to somebody else, then it can't be assigned to somebody else. Which means you have the absolute right to settle the debt with the original party, regardless of their "standard policy" in regard to collections. Their interna
              • Nowadays, I tend to grab my phone and record that. A video of a legal contract is quite hard to dispute. I'm not sure why that's not more common really.

          • by Gavrielkay (1819320) on Monday July 29, 2013 @01:03AM (#44410069)
            IANAL, however I think modifications to boiler plate contracts have to be initialized by both parties to be valid. And that's for your benefit or they could add whatever they wanted after you signed it and claim it was there all along. So, funny story, but unless you pointed out your addition to them and got someone to initial it, you probably didn't really accomplish anything.
        • by AK Marc (707885)
          How do you live? If I read to legal understanding everything I've signed, I'd still be reading. It'd take weeks to buy a house, not just an hour with three or more sets of lawyers sitting in a room while they shuffle the buyer and seller through at separate times on the same day (always the same day so that the funding from the buy hits the sale on the same day to pay off the previous mortgage, if any). In some cases, the contract isn't even available. I've signed things that apply to non-supplied terms
          • by Sentrion (964745)

            Yes. That too many Americans sheepishly suspend their rights in the name of convenience is exactly why these practices have gotten too far out of hand in the first place. We are no longer the same people who went to war against our King because we were required to use name-brand paper (the Stamp Act) and repay the Crown for the cost of the French and Indian War.

          • I live quite well, and I know what the conditions of things I've signed for. How do YOU live not knowing what you've actually agreed to. In my state (Illinois) , the contract for the sale of a house has to be given to you 24 hours in advance of you signing it, and yes, I read it. Well, technically, I last "purchased" a house 20+ years ago, but I just refinanced it a year ago or so.

            If I'm agreeing to a 15-30 year deal, then an hour (maybe two) isn't that big of a deal spending to make sure that all the mo

            • by AK Marc (707885)

              In my state (Illinois) , the contract for the sale of a house has to be given to you 24 hours in advance of you signing it,

              I've bought in Texas and Alaska, and they expect you to sign within 5 minutes of sitting down. I read and had them bring me drinks (hot chocolate, mainly) and they had to wait.

              As if there should have been some way to avoid bad situations, oh, but wait, there was.. READ WHAT YOU AGREE TO.

              So you've read every EULA you've ever agreed to? Really?

          • Are you impulse buying houses?

            A purchase that'll be, at an absolute minimum, tens of thousands of pounds and likely to have long-term consequences does not strike me as being someone one rushes through to avoid having to read small print.

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              I never said I don't read them. I stated that almost nobody does. Why is it so many stupid people assume that if I explain reality, I'm defending it? People are stupid. And yes, I've impulse bought a house. $250,000 (no pounds), and no harmful effects (and no, "impulse buy" doesn't mean I didn't read the contract), as 99.99% of the time, it's the standard contract that needs no great scrutiny.

              Do you read 100% of all EULAs you agree to?
              • the big problem is they could hide a clause that requires you to maintain an internet connection so that the (hidden) cameras installed in the bedrooms can be accessed by the seller.

          • "Weeks to buy a house"? Those contracts are usually 3 to 4 pages long, and might quote 2 laws which are less than a single page each. No more than 30 minutes.

        • You do, I do, and a great many more on slashdot do as well. But we're probably the 2% who can read, write and add. The other 98% signs the whole stack without thinking it.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      We don't need no stinkin copyright to protect it.

      We already have HIPAA.

      • Yes, true. But I think (I don't remember for sure) the issue with this dentist first came up before HIPAA was passed.

        Besides: it's a pretty thin excuse for giving up copyright. Probably wouldn't fly if actually challenged in court.
    • According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient

      And how would that work, anyway? I don't have a privacy agreement with myself. I can tell the whole world all sorts of crazy stuff about myself without any recourse against me for doing it.

    • by nbauman (624611)

      There may be a touch of justification for this. The confidentiality laws are one-sided. A patient can criticize a doctor or dentist, but under HIPAA, the doctor or dentist can't defend himself because the doctor is under an obligation of confidentiality. So you could call that a loophole.

      When somebody sues a doctor for malpractice, as part of the filing the doctor is released from HIPAA confidentiality to defend himself.

      This contract may be intended to say, "Since I can't defend myself in public, you can't

    • by dcollins (135727) on Monday July 29, 2013 @12:55AM (#44410043) Homepage

      "What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract."

      Read the Ars Technica piece by the writer who tried to say "no" to such a contract. In short: he gets booted out the door. Now imagine you're in pain and maybe scared about a possible medical emergency (as the patient in the lawsuit here was). Situations like that is why oversight of a time-critical service like this is needed.

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech/ [arstechnica.com]

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:15PM (#44409043)
    In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.

    What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.

    So what did Makhnevich give patients in exchange for that? If nothing, then there is no contract.

    I suppose it's remotely possible that the patients were trading their copyright for dentistry, but that seems a pretty thin argument.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!"

      The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues. All this also assumes the complaints are real and not just made up derogatory astroturfing online of competitors.

      • by macbeth66 (204889)

        Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!"

        I use Yelp extensively and leave both favorable and unfavorable reviews for a variety of things and find the site to be quite helpful to find what is good and what to stay the heck away from. You can tell who has an axe to grind by looking at their other reviews.

        In NYC, the Health Department has a letter system for restaurants. The restaurant must post it prominently. I find it amusing that the restaurants that object the most strongly are also the ones that get poor reviews on Yelp. Like "Gross" and "

      • "Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!""

        But over time that's a self-defeating fad. If people post frivolous critiques, sooner or later other people will stop taking the site seriously.

      • by Zemran (3101) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @09:21PM (#44409321) Homepage Journal

        My ex-wife does catering for local hotels, i.e. she rents their restaurants and runs them for them. So I know a little bit about the local hotels. Last year a friend wanted to stay in my city but he wanted a top end hotel and my ex works with the mid range hotels so apart from asking her advice I looked at the internet sites. Most had very similar comments. Several comments were very obviously professionally written and I could even see the same style of writing in several comments. Anyway, one hotel interested me. It had several comments including a story about room service stealing a guests mobile phone and about how the guest was very badly treated by reception when they complained. There were lots of replies and debate about how terrible this was. The story interested me because I knew that the hotel had not opened yet and had not employed any staff.

        The hotels hire advertising companies who will write glowing stories about the hotel (lies) and write bad stories about the opposition. I am talking about hotels but I am sure that the concept applied to all areas of debate on the internet.

        • by _merlin (160982)

          Yeah, I've seen reviews that I think have to be written by the competition, such as a review of a hotel in Tokyo complaining that wifi was slow, when the hotel didn't have wifi at all (only ethernet, which was plenty fast).

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @11:54PM (#44409843)

        The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues.

        The BBB is a scam, they just have really good marketing like DeBeers quality marketing.

        The way it works is that dues-paying BBB members get to have their records wiped of any unresolved complaints after a certain period, usually about a year although it varies between BBB offices. Non-members do not get their records wiped under any circumstances. So when a disgruntled customer files a BBB complaint about a non-member business, the BBB uses that as a marketing tool to get that business to start paying dues.

        The end result is that you can only trust BBB records of non-members, because they never get wiped, while a dues-paying BBB "member in good standing" may have hundreds of unresolved complaints that have simply expired. Occasionally a BBB office will "fire" a really egregious dues-paying member, but AFAIK there is no consistent set of rules across all BBB offices for when, if ever, that is required.

        • "The BBB is a scam, they just have really good marketing like DeBeers quality marketing."

          I know some people who owned a store, & they were members in good standing of BBB. But eventually they dropped their membership. I asked the owner why.

          He said "The BBB can't help companies. All they can do is hurt you. Nobody calls them with favorable reviews... the only calls they get are complaints."

    • by drkim (1559875)

      In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.

      In this case it would appear that the consideration is the "increased privacy" beyond HIPAA.

      It will probably still not be enforceable since the reviews are not a work for hire, and reviews are generally not protected by copyright.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        In particular, the only things that can ever potentially be copyrighted are creative works. Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by am 2k (217885)

          Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.

          I'm pretty sure that Fox News "news" are copyrightable.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by Macgrrl (762836)

            I'm pretty sure Fox 'news' wouldn't know a fat if it bit them on the ass. I just can't work out what genre applies though; science fiction, fantasy or magical realism?

            • by Macgrrl (762836)

              Bah. I even previewed and didn't see it until after I hit submit. I obviously meant 'fact' not 'fat'.

      • "In this case it would appear that the consideration is the 'increased privacy' beyond HIPAA."

        Fictitious consideration is the same as none.

    • by DRJlaw (946416)

      In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.

      What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.

      Courts do not analyze consideration with that degree of detail. In order for there to be consideration, both sides have to agree to provide something of value and/or agree not to do something that they otherwise had the right to do (provi

    • Supposedly it's increased privacy, which is pretty thin also; I don't even say "Hi" first to our patients I see on the street due to potential HIPPA concerns.

    • by Capsaicin (412918) *

      What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry ...

      No, it is dentistry. The assignment of copyright constitutes part payment for the provision of dental services, the balance being paid in legal tender.

      ...since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright

      Reducing that logic to the extreme, the fact that a free dentists practises elsewhere would mean that no dentist can charge anything for dentistry.

      I suppose

    • by AK Marc (707885)

      In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.

      With EULA, the "consideration" use using the item you bought. If you don't agree, you don't get to use the item you own. So the service itself *is* the consideration. I think that sucks, but it works for EULA/copyright, so why not dentistry?

    • In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.

      What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.

      What? Of course it was the dentistry service. Why do you think consideration must be unique? If that were the case, then paying the dentist with money would not be consideration since just about everybody has money.

  • ...this totally bites.

  • I live in India. Here some people are still trapped in superstitious beliefs and practices. There's spiritual guide named as Nirmal Baba, I wrote a post against him on my blog highlighting the ways he was using to corrupt the minds of the common people. The post was written one year ago. After that I had promoted it for a while, did some SEO and stuff. And then it faded away as Nirmal Baba obscured from public view because the media was targeting him one year ago. Then slowly the channels started shutting t
    • by jbolden (176878)

      Whee exactly is the crime against democracy here?

      1) You were allowed to write, no criminal penalties were applied.
      2) You were informed that if their was a civil lawsuit you would win
      3) You were informed that Nimal Baba runs a criminal enterprise that takes revenge on journalists

      (1) and (2) is protection of free speech. (3) is protection of civil order. You caved to a private harassment threat. In a despotic government that sort of thing is less likely.

  • Dentist Who (Score:5, Funny)

    by Noughmad (1044096) <miha.cancula@gmail.com> on Monday July 29, 2013 @06:10AM (#44410715) Homepage

    The much less popular time lord.

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@aoMONETl.com minus painter> on Monday July 29, 2013 @07:28AM (#44410877) Journal

    I imagine this class action lawsuit is not the reason she is on the run. I would think that if what Lee said was true, and she was charging insurance companies $4000 for a $200 job, she has bigger problems.

    All speculation, but it seems to me this is a "take the money and run before I get discovered for widespread multimillion dollar insurance fraud" disappearing act rather than a "OMG a civil law suit! Run!" disappearing act.

  • Dentist is a paranoid narcissist
    Dentist is a drug addict
    Dentist launders money

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...