Enterprise Risk Management, BC, COOP Just the facts Avoids libel, Defamation suit

THE HEADLINE READS I wrote a negative Yelp review — and it made my life a nightmare¹

The story has “grown legs” and now pops up in multiple on-line publications,

BASICALLY, a Manhattan woman who gave one-star reviews on Yelp and ZocDoc to a Kips Bay gynecologist has spent nearly $20,000 defending herself against a defamation suit filed by the physician, according to her and court papers.

Meanwhile, the doctor’s lawyers insist that “No reasonable person would believe that the statements made therein were opinion,’’ court papers say.

The defendant told the Post that “They tried to drag my start-up wine-and-spirits technology business into it … They posted my entire medical record, including notes about my mental health, my bills, my insurance info, my driver’s license, birth date and home address”

Lawyers on both sides will have a field day on the way to the bank. The Federal government also might get involved (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 a/k/a HIPAA) if the patient’s claims (They posted my entire medical record, including notes about my mental health) are proven.²

I AM NOT A LAWYER ...

Nor do I play one on tv.

I am a former print reporter and editor who is generally cognizant of libel/slander and defamation laws.

In every state in which I worked, truth is an absolute defense. HOWEVER, in a different Yelp! Case, Noonan v. Staples, Inc., the First Circuit reinterpreted Massachusetts’s libel statute by lowering the standard to prove actual malice in libel suits.³ The Suffolk Law Review file continued: The court in Noonan interpreted Massachusetts’s libel law as only including truth as a defense to libel where the bloggers making the statements lack “actual malice” or “ill will” towards the defamed individual.

That, however, is Massachusetts’ law and may not apply to New York (or any other state).

The problem with libel/slander and defamation suits, at least for publishers is that even if the publisher has exceptional libel insurance the publisher will have to spend time in court. Lost productivity can be expensive.

Two things publishers, even blog publishers, need to know about are noted at the end of my efforts:

• Plagiarism - CITE YOUR SOURCES
• Truth is an absolute defense to defamation

The Massachusetts’ law will effect only those who are trying to “get even” and go beyond facts to opinion.

I used to have a great personal physician, but his office staff was less than could be desired. That is a provable fact. (To be fair, the office folks reportedly are doing better now.) There was no malice in my postings; they were made as a warning to others regarding what to expect from the front office.

It is very difficult to libel a person who is not identifiable – “a baker in Atlanta” is probably broad enough to defuse the threat of libel; being more specific is encouraging a reaction from the “baker.”

Unfortunately for both the plaintiff and the defendant in the New York doctor-vs.-patient flap, both parties are identified in several on-line publications

AN ASIDE: Citing a source (e.g., Suffolk Law Review) may NOT be sufficient if the blogger copies most of the original author’s work; for that permission from the owner of the work must be granted.

BOTTOM LINE: It’s OK to complain about people and organizations as long as the complaint can be proven and (in Massachusetts at least) there is no malice in the complaint.

Just remember: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv.

---

Sources

1. New York Post (http://tinyurl.com/y8ofmsu4 )

2. HIPAA (http://tinyurl.com/y8jkal89 )

3. Suffolk Law Review (http://tinyurl.com/ycyjsqcy )

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Just the facts

Opuscula So-so documentation; Fair customer service

 

OF LATE I HAVE been on a rampage about customer service; actually the LACK of customer service.

This is, unfortunately, an on-going travail for me.

But I came across a company with responsive, albeit not especially fast, customer service.

The company is Taurus, full name Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.. of Miami FL.

Actually, Taurus is Forjas Taurus S.A and, save for one caliber, it makes Taurus (and other) firearms in Brasil (Brazil) . The Miami operation imports the Brasil-made firearms and, when necessary, handles repairs.

I was reading the Taurus Revolvers Instruction Manual a/k/a owner's manual; it covers all wheel guns (revolvers) made by Taurus. LOTS of pages of warnings and cautions. As a former tech writer, I appreciate that.

There is a relatively new, "souped up" ammunition for specific calibers. It's called "+P" (Plus P), the "P" being for "pressure."

Not all weapons for which +P bullets fit are designed for regular use of +P bullets.

Taurus' manual gives a list.

It looks like all current Taurus .38 caliber revolvers can accommodate +P, as well as "all firearms chambered in .38 Super Automatic, .45 ACP, and 9 mm Luger."

Missing was a line reading "All firearms chambered for .367 magnum."

I just bought a used Taurus Model 605 .357 magnum manufacatured in 2014.

Was I going to fire .38 +P bullets with it? Taurus omitted that flavor in its list and I suspect perhaps there was a reason for the omission. Perhaps date of manufacture?

I did my homework and found out that while the .38 +P is more powerful (has more pressure anyway) than a .38 Special, the +P pressure was substantually less than a .357 round.

So I wrote a snailmail letter to Taurus asking How Come the .357 was missing from the list of weapons that could fire +P ammunition. I included in my letter what I discovered regarding pressure ratings. Perhaps Taurus has a reason I failed to perceive for omitting the .357 from the list of guns that would safely fire +P rounds. Maybe the age of the gun.

Friday afternoon a Sweet Young Thing calls and tells me she's calling from Taurus and yes, the .357 magnum I bought will indeed safely fire .38 Special +P ammunition.

She tried to explain about pressure and how the .357 bullet's pressure was higher than the .38 +P and I interrupted her, telling her THAT information was in MY letter to Taurus.

For all that, Taurus gets at least a silver star on its corporate forehead for at least responding to my query, and with an answer than actually was usable.

Meanwhile, an airline's Customer Care(less) operation still is doing I'm not sure what, certainly not answering my many-times-asked question. The traveler will be back home before I get an answer from the airline.

Since I know I'm going to make another international flight, maybe I'll ask another airline how to get from Passport Control and Customs to the domestic flight gates in Philadelphia.

It's a shame that a customer service opeeration that takes care of the customers is so unusual.