A Minnesota appeals court ruled on September 15 that a patient who posted negative reviews about a dentist could be sued for defamation because her posts were not protected under the state’s free speech law, according to a story published in the Star Tribune.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the defamation lawsuit filed by J&D Dental in Minneapolis and its CEO, Dr. Jennifer Herbert, against patient Liya Hou could proceed. The court ruled that Hou’s reviews were not a matter of public concern under the state’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, according to the story.
Before the negative reviews were posted, Hou underwent two tooth fillings and a crown at J&D Dental. Afterward, Hou reportedly felt discomfort and sought treatment from another dentist, who told her that the dental work would have to be redone. J&D Dental questioned this, asked for more information, and discussed possible remedies for the situation.
Eventually, the dental practice offered to refund Hou’s insurance company for the dental work she received if the patient released J&D Dental from all claims of liability. Hou allegedly responded that she wanted $2,000 paid to herself plus $1,279 for the insurance. The practice claimed that Hou threatened to act, including posting about her dental treatment on social media, if it did not comply.
They couldn’t reach an agreement, and Hou purportedly began posting several reviews about the practice on Google, Yelp, and other public sites. In these reviews, Hou claimed that the dentist damaged three of her teeth, which led to more serious dental problems. Furthermore, Hou claimed that Herbert was dismissive, according to the story.
In response, the dental practice sent a letter demanding that Hou remove the posts. However, Hou reportedly chose to edit her reviews, adding that Herbert threatened her with legal action, according to the story.
J&D Dental filed a defamation lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against Hou, citing that her reviews were false and unsupported and the patient had a history of writing negative online reviews.
Hou motioned to have the suit dismissed, arguing that her reviews were of substantial public interest and concern. Instead, the court denied the motion, citing that there was no evidence that the review sites offer a platform for discussions or widespread problems related to dentistry. This led Hou to appeal, according to the story.
The appeals court determined that review sites can offer a place where people discuss problems and concerns, but Hou’s reviews were only about her personal experiences.
