Non-Disparagement Contracts Could Infringe on Constitutional Rights and Also Harm Patients
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords all persons freedom against the abridgment of speech, which has been interpreted to include all forms of communication, be they written, spoken, or typed. In this day and age of technological advances, the Internet has provided people with yet another forum in which to communicate ideas and opinions, and has been an enormous beneficial learning tool.
So, when a person is harmed by the negligence of a medical provider, they should be able to warn other people about their experience, to prevent future medical malpractice, right?
Not so, say lawyers on behalf of the negligent health care professionals.
But how fair is that? Not only would the the inalienable rights of citizens be forsaken if that were the case, but innocent patients who would potentially become future victims would not be given the opportunity to make informed decisions about their choice of healthcare provider.
That’s the argument of a man who has recently filed a class-action lawsuit against a dentist after the dentist required him to sign a contract promising not to disparage her, or her work, online – and then fined him thousands of dollars, trying to enforce the contract, reports MSNBC.
The man went to his dentist for treatment for a serious infection and severe toothache; he was in pain and was desperate for treatment. Although he questioned the anti-defamation contract’s terms, he was in urgent need of dental work, so he signed the contract.
According to MSNBC, the dentist was among hundreds of medical professionals nationwide in recent years that have refused to care for patients unless they signed anti-defamation contracts. Any Chicago personal injury attorney would tell you that, given increasing rates of Illinois medical malpractice cases, the ability to share and receive information about healthcare providers is imperative to patient safety.
These controversial contracts demand that patients not only don’t post negative comments on the internet regarding the healthcare provider or the treatment, but that the dentist owned the copyright to any critical posts.
According to MSNBC, after the dentist in this case allegedly overcharged the man by approximately $4,000 for his care, submitted his records to the wrong insurance company and then refused to provide copies of the records so he could submit them correctly himself, the man posted complaints on online patient-review websites. Days later, the dentist demanded that the websites remove the man’s opinion comments, and sent him invoices for fines of $100 a day that ultimately totaled more than $4600.
As a general rule, patient- and consumer-review websites refuse to remove negative comments, under the rationale that they are protected by the federal Communication Decency Act and protections afforded by the First Amendment.
As per MSNBC, it is not clear whether this lawsuit – and the resultant publicity – will lead to an end of to medical gag-order contracts, but our Chicago personal injury lawyers are hopeful that patient rights – both with regard to free speech, and the ability to get needed information to protect themselves – will come out on top.
