Commentary

Litigious Dentist, Yelp Reviewers Prepare To Face Off In Court

On Feb. 27 2006, Tai Jing took his 4-year-old son to dentist Yvonne Wong so she could treat a cavity. Wong gave him nitrous oxide and then filled his tooth with a silver amalgam containing mercury.

"After the procedure, I walked with my son into the parking lot and he vomited right next to my car," Tai Jing wrote in court papers filed this week. "His face was pale as paper ... I suspected that might be related to the anesthetic, but I didn't know if any other choices were available in pediatric dentistry."

Two years later, he took his son to a different dentist who found seven cavities and filled them with white composites. Tai Jing then panned Wong on the review site Yelp, where he described his son's experience with the dentist.

The review prompted a defamation lawsuit by Wong -- one of a handful of cases brought by health care professionals about reviews on the site. Among other charges, she says the review libeled her by implying she had used mercury in the filling without first informing the parents, and by saying that nitrous oxide "harms a kid's nervous system."

In the case, brought in Santa Clara, Wong named Tai Jing and his wife, Jia Ma, as defendants, as well as Yelp itself -- even though the site is immune from libel suits based on user comments.

Now, the boy's parents and Yelp are asking for the case to be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law. Among other arguments, they say that the safety of mercury fillings is up for debate -- which means that comments about whether mercury is safe are protected because they concern a topic of public interest.

If the court accepts this reasoning -- as it should -- not only will the case be dismissed, but Wong could be on the hook for the attorneys' fees.

Of course medical professionals, like everyone else, should be able to protect themselves from online defamation. At the same time, not every bad review is libelous. Sometimes, they reflect patients' bad experiences. And doctors, dentists and all other professionals who feel insulted by negative posts have recourses other than suing. They can air points of view -- by explaining, for instance, why they believe particular treatments are safe -- without violating any client confidences.

Or they can learn to live with bad reviews, as actors or authors have learned to do. Or hope that patients with good experiences will spread positive word-of-mouth that drowns out the negative.

A judge is supposed to hear arguments on the matter on Tuesday.

Next story loading loading..