Heck of a good fight going on at HLT

[Gorpy]

You guys should see the fight at Hair Loss Talk. Dang! It's getting nasty.

[Gorpy]

You guys should see the fight at Hair Loss Talk. Dang! It's getting nasty.

[the B spot]

Thanks Gorpy.

 

Yeah, it is funny how Dr. C*O*L*E cannot seem to stay on a forum very long without something coming up about his practice.

 

I know he has been found to have MANY trolls working the forums undercover and was kicked off here a while ago.

 

The guy has the money and the attitude that he will sue anyone who contradicts him, period.

 

I have long held the opinion that he does some good work, (better than Woods!) but he is a legend in his own mind.

 

I just monitor that site right now, as some of the posters there just use the forum to argue and belittle others.

 

In my opinion, at some point in time, the dr in question will get what is coming to him.

Remember, he can do no wrong, and everyone else has no idea what they are talking about.

Thanks Gorpy!

[Bill - Seemiller]

Seems pointless to me...such words are wasted...nobody is really listening to anyone over there anyway...on that particular thread. It is a little entertaining to read. I have never posted there...but for kicks...I just joined as a member. I don't know how often I'll actually visit that site...but oh well.

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

Bill

[Gorpy]

The fact that the doctor in question got on there and spewed out a bunch of accusations (even against a former doctor working under him) is interesting. Then the subordinate doctor came on to defend himself. I've learned quite a bit about the people involved.

[Bill - Seemiller]

lol Gorpy,

 

I am not sure I'd want to learn that much about all the people involved . I know what you mean though...these things are interesting. I think you'll find though, that there won't be any kind of resolution...it will eventually just end because people will be tired of screaming at one another.

 

Bill

[hairbank]

It's threads like that which make me thankful for a place such as this I can contribute to. Making your point is one thing, acting argumentative and childish is another. If I see a thread headed in that direction I usually stop posting..............when it gets personal what can be accomplished for the good of others frequenting the forum??

 

Definitely not for me............

[Pat - Community Publisher]

I missed this thread. But it sounds like the online community may finally be getting a glimpse of the reality of the grandstanding master of the FIT (and I mean that in the tantrum sense of the word).

 

I've been threatened multiple times by Dr. FIT with lawsuits for stating my opinion that I think he is a grandstanding ethical disaster.

 

If patients only knew a tenth of what I've learned over the years (which I do keep in a file in case Dr. FIT is actually foolish enough to sue me and wants it all presented in public).

 

Some have questioned why Dr. FIT is not presented on this community. Frankly I've long since decided to wash my hands of him and his online circus.

 

He may get away with murder on other forums but here his games are not tolerated. That is why there is only one four letter word in the English language that is not permitted on this forum.

 

Can you guess what it is? It starts with a "C" and ends with an "E".

 

Do members of this community agree with my attorney that his name best be left off this forum?

[Bill - Seemiller]

Preach it Pat. I'm in total agreement after doing the reading I've done on other forums...scary stuff.

 

Do members of this community agree with my attorney that his name best be left off this forum?

 

Can I get an Amen everyone? AMEN!!!

 

It's threads like that which make me thankful for a place such as this I can contribute to. Making your point is one thing, acting argumentative and childish is another. If I see a thread headed in that direction I usually stop posting..............when it gets personal what can be accomplished for the good of others frequenting the forum??

 

Definitely not for me........

 

Another Amen!

 

Bill

[Hoping]

Hi Pat, I've sued a few people for defamation in the past (on behalf of my clients) and I've defended a few. I can't tell you whether this Doctor could win any kind of lawsuit against you, as "opinions" are generally protected where as defamatory facts are not. I can tell you a few things that are true in Florida however and probably most states. (1) It is always better to avoid a lawsuit if at all possible. No use looking for trouble. No matter how justified you are in your position nobody can predict how a lawsuit will turn out. (2) Even if you win, and even if you have an insurance company providing you a defense, lawsuits can still be draining of your time and energy (3) Truth is not an absolute defense to a defamation claim. For example, if you publish your neighbor has a loathsome disease and they do, that you published such fact maliciously may still result in your losing a case. (5) The results of any lawsuit very much depend on the randomness of the judge assigned to your case and the jury who hears the case. There are appellate courts if the Judge screws up, but they only bother, (in Florida at least) reversing a small percentage of all of the injustices inflicted on people in our courts and quite frankly, even if a Judge gets it completely wrong on the law the appellate courts often will not intervene. (5) The truth matters not at all in a courtroom. It is only the perception of truth. (6) Fairness is a foreign concept in a court of law. Fair has nothing to do with anything.

 

There are always gray lines in defamation claims. After all, we should be able to give opinions about how good or bad we think a particular HT surgeon. On the other hand, there are laws on the books about defaming business people. You might find the case below interesting and somewhat informative. The bottom line is keep up the good fight and don't worry so much about offering opinions. On the other hand, if you can avoid a fight without compromising yourself or this websight you should do so. If you can do so without mentioning the name of this doctor, you should. Follow your attorney's advice. And make sure you have a policy of insurance that does not exclude claims for libel.

 

Florida Case Law

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BECKER v. HOOSHMAND, 841 So.2d 561 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2003)

PATRICIA A. BECKER, Appellant, v. HOOSHANG HOOSHMAND, M.D., Appellee.

Case No. 4D02-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Opinion filed March 12, 2003.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 2003.

 

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Scott M. Kenney, Judge; L.T. Case

No. 01-415 CA11.

 

Kevin S. Doty of Hatch & Doty, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.

 

Janet M. Carney and Louis B. Vocelle, Jr., of Clem, Polackwich,

Vocelle & Berg, L.L.P., Vero Beach, for appellee.

 

POLEN, C.J.

 

This appeal arises from a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion

to dismiss based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction. For the

reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

 

Appellant, Patricia Becker, was named as the defendant in a multi-count

civil action brought by Dr. Hooshmand. Becker is a resident of Chester

County, Pennsylvania. Dr. Hooshmand is a licensed physician practicing in

Indian River County, Florida.

 

In Dr. Hooshmand's complaint, he alleged that Ms. Becker, through her

activity on the internet, should be found liable for defamation,

defamation per se, and tortious interference with a business

relationship. Dr. Hooshmand further alleged that Ms. Becker is a

moderator of an internet chat room and has posted numerous defamatory

comments about him that were targeted to Florida residents, or people

likely to seek medical care in the state of Florida, which resulted in

injury to his reputation and business. Becker responded to the complaint

with a motion to dismiss alleging that the court could not

Page 562

properly exercise jurisdiction over her. The trial court disagreed, and so

do we.

 

The applicable standard of review is de novo. See Taylor v. City

of Riviera Beach, 801 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

 

The Florida Supreme Court has held that determining the propriety of

the exercise of long arm jurisdiction in Florida is a two-step inquiry.

Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989). The first

step is to determine if the plaintiff has established sufficient

jurisdictional facts to subject the defendant to Florida's long arm

jurisdiction. Id. at 502. Once the first step has been satisfied, the

second inquiry is whether the defendant possesses sufficient minimum

contacts to satisfy the constitutional due process requirements. Id. at

500. The initial burden falls on the plaintiff to plead the basis for

service under the long-arm statue. Id. at 502. The plaintiff may satisfy

this initial burden either by alleging the language of the statute

without pleading supporting facts, or by alleging specific facts that

indicate that the defendant's actions fit within one of the sections of

Florida's long arm statute, section 48.193. Id.

 

Additionally, "a defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the

complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum

contacts must file affidavits in support of his position." Id. at 502. If

a defendant submits such an affidavit, then the burden shifts back to

plaintiff to submit affidavits establishing the basis for jurisdiction.

Id.

 

We conclude that the allegations of the complaint satisfy Dr.

Hooshmand's initial burden. Florida's long arm statute provides in part:

 

"Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of

this state, who personally or through an agent does

any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby

submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a

natural person, his or her personal representative to

the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any

cause of action arising from the doing of any of the

following acts:

 

. . .

 

(b) Committing a tortious act within this state.

 

. . .

 

(f) Causing injury to persons or property within this

state arising out of an act or omission by the

defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time

of the injury, either:

 

1. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or

service activities within this state; . . .

 

?§ 48.193, Fla. Stat.

 

The initial threshold was satisfied in the complaint by alleging facts

that indicate that the defendant's actions fit within one of the sections

of Florida's long arm statute, section 48.193. Specifically, facts were

alleged that indicate that the defendant committed a tortious act within

the state.

 

Florida courts have long recognized that a cause of action in tort

arises where the injury to the plaintiff first occurs. See, e.g.,

Williams v. Goldsmith, 619 So.2d 330 (Fla.3d DCA 1993) (tortious

interference with contract claim accrued where plaintiff suffered injury

by loss of clients); see also Walt Disney World Co. v. Leff, 323 So.2d 602

(Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (personal injury action accrued where injury

occurred); Tucker v. Fianson, 484 So.2d 1370 (Fla.3d DCA 1986) (legal

malpractice action accrued where asserted negligence impacted plaintiff's

economic interest).

 

The Florida Supreme Court recently clarified this issue and noted

that:

 

In order to commit a tortious act in Florida, a

defendant's physical presence is not required.

Second, committing a

Page 563

tortious act in Florida under section 48.193(1)(b)

can occur through the nonresident defendant's telephonic,

electronic, or written communications into Florida.

However, the cause of action must arise from the

communications.

 

Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002).

 

Furthermore, this court has previously held that committing a tortious

act under Florida's long arm statute does not require that a physical

tort occur in this state. See, e.g, Carida v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc.,

424 So.2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). (slanderous telephone conversations

were sufficient.) Similarly, this court has concluded that mailing a

letter into the State of Florida was sufficient to find that tortious

conduct took place in the state. Silver v. Levinson, 648 So.2d 241 (Fla.

4th DCA 1994). Additionally, this court has held that making a defamatory

statement over the telephone constitutes the commission of a tortious act

for purposes of Florida's long arm statute. Achievers Unlimited, Inc. v.

Nutri Herb, Inc., 710 So.2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We find that the

communications that form the basis of the allegations in this case are

analogous to cases previously decided by this court and certainly fit

within the recent Supreme Court's discussion of electronic

communications. As a result, we conclude that the initial burden required

under Venetian Salami was satisfied.

 

Next we turn to Becker's attempt to contest jurisdiction. Becker did

submit an affidavit that contested the factual allegations of the

complaint concerning jurisdiction. However, her affidavit was submitted

ten days after the trial court ruled on the motion to dismiss. The trial

court specifically commented on the lack of supporting affidavits in

denying the motion based on the four corners of the complaint.

 

Whether or not Becker's untimely affidavit challenges the allegations

relating to jurisdiction pursuant to Venetian Salami, the affidavit was

not filed in a timely manner. The trial court could not properly have

considered it and was correct in ruling on the motion based on the four

corners of the complaint. As a result, we affirm the decision of the

trial court in all respects.

 

AFFIRMED.

 

GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

.

[Pat - Community Publisher]

Hoping,

 

Thanks for free advice (it is free, right :-)?

 

I learned a few years ago that a person can be sued and suffer whether they are right or wrong. The courts can be an expensive nightmare and those with the most money even when in the wrong can and often do prevail.

 

It's a razors edge to stand and speak what you believe and yet skirt becoming embroiled in an ugly and energy draining fight. I really hate the idea of giving into to intimidation by bullies.

 

I have had my share of battles since I started publishing this community. You might imagine how many physicians despise the idea of a lay person choosing who should or should not be recommended. And then there is this forum - my God - the nerve of average people to publicly critique physicians . . . It's a virtual law suit magnet.

 

Unfortunately on the forums, just as in court, it is the perception of truth not actual truth that prevails. I really get disgusted some times by what some self promoting physicians have gotten away with and still get away with on some forums.

 

I think I better take a closer look at my "professional insurance" contract.

 

Thanks again, Pat

 

P.S. Does anyone have a link to that hot topic at Hair Loss Talk?

[Gorpy]

Here ya go. It's a very long thresd. The doctors don't start chiming in till about page 7.

 

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?t=27537

[Bill - Seemiller]

Both threads are closed now, but here are 2 of them.

 

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?t=27537

 

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?t=31370

 

Bill

[Pat - Community Publisher]

What a blow out that thread was. I got a headache just reading it. But none of it surprised me at all. In fact, I'd heard much of the revelations (and then some) in confidence long ago.

 

I had my share of heated debates and blow outs on this forum years ago with Dr. FIT back when I didn't have the good sense to just simply steer clear of him. It was a big waste of time and energy.

 

I'm glad this community is free of him and his online circus. And I'm very thankful for the positive, genuine and civil members of this forum that make it constructive and useful for those who participate.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I have asked the doctor in question many many times to clarify and support grandiose statements he's been making on the internet for years and have never gotten an answer.

 

Not the least of these questions is: what are the specific differences between FIT and FUE? Not once, not a single time, has a detailed answer been offered.

 

You do not need to risk a lawsuit to expose a person like this doctor. All you need to do is simply respond to statements he himself makes publicly with a few simple straight forward questions. If he evades the question like a politician then you know instantly that he has a credibility problem and you move on.

 

Truth is, he is a very capable and ambitous doctor. The will, the ability, and the experience are all there. Believe me, it's no easy task to perform FUE on any kind of a regular basis, but he seems to overshadow his accomplishments and potential with a massive ego and a bad attitude. A shame really.

[Bill - Seemiller]

I lost interest in that thread after about 25 minutes of reading...it was just getting WAY out of hand and ridiculous to read. It is a thread like that that makes me appreciate being an ACTIVE and REGULAR member of this community.

 

Dr. Feller,

 

I agree with you. I see absolutely no evidence that there is any difference between his FIT approach and FUE. I appreciate all I've read on your posts about FUE, especially how you are honest that it's not anywhere near where Strip is for larger sessions, etc. It seems to me that many patients preach FUE now adays like it's the ONLY answer, and I disagree. FUE has it's place, but is very limited in session size. But I've really appreciated the results you've posted of FUE patients...you have definately done some great things with it.

 

Bill

 

Bill

[Salt-N-Peppa]

That thread should simply end with "your momma" and then have a throw down!!! That was a waste of 20 minutes of my life reading that garbage.

S-n-P

[FacelessMan]

Here's a scenario for you...and the most I can say about it is that it's a) contextually relevant to this thread and b) factual but anonymous, to protect the person involved.

 

My friend "Spoonman" (cool guy...all his friends are Indians...er, never mind) was researching HT options, and at the start of his search: in other words, he knew little or nothing about them, or who the best doctors were, and had only discovered one of the forums that exist. He was also in a particularly anxious state regarding his hair loss, which, coupled with the above, put him in a less than optimal position to make a sound, informed, level-headed choice.

 

Spoonman schedules a consultation with a particular firm, which we'll call Bad Hair Day. He pays $50 for said consultation. Approximately a week before said consultation, Bad Hair Day tells him that the consultation will be, not with the surgeon, but with an other member of the staff who though not the surgeon Spoonman will use, is nonetheless qualified. Spoonman is slightly pissed, particularly given that he is being charged for this, but is, as mentioned above, eager to get things going and therefore overlooks the matter.

The consultation proceeds well enough and the person is pleasant, not a salesman, and seems knowledgeable, and the suggested graft count sounds reasonable (based on the aforementioned lack of knowledge), so Spoonman feels pretty good about it.

 

Shortly thereafter, Spoonman schedules the procedure. Bad Hair Day's policy, he discovers, is to require, not only a deposit, but the entire cost of the procedure, before it is performed. Spoonman ignores the little alarm bells going off in his head -- even the guy who remodeled his bathroom didn't get his fees before the job was done -- but, again, ignores the quiet voice of his gut instinct, because he really really wants to get this done and over with. So he signs a form, agreeing to pay the deposit along with the cost of the procedure, and mails it to Bad Hair Day.

 

When talking the situation over with a friend, who is far more objective, as well as knowledgeable about contracts, his friend strongly echoes Spoonman's suppressed concern: "What, are you nuts? So what if you signed a form, that doesn't even sound legal!" And to make matters worse, Spoonman's financial situation takes a downturn around the same time, making the expenditure not only dubious but risky. And now he is in a bad situation, having hastily and emotionally agreed in writing to pay the amount, which by this point has already been charged, with his permission right there in black and white, to his account electronically.

 

He contacts Bad Hair Day to ask for a refund. He knows that at this point, he will have to lose the deposit, given that he is cancelling within a short time of the procedure, but assumes that this is all he will lose; how can any reputable company, and a medical one, no less, charge someone for serviced they have not provided? Bad Hair Day, however, refuses, claiming that they cannot schedule another patient in time. He protests. Finally, another person from Bad Hair Day sends him a long, legal-ese document that informs him, in essence, that he will receive half of the money he paid, and that he will be liable for damages if he discloses any details of this refund to anyone. He chooses to sign it at this point, thinking that getting back half of his money is better than losing all of it and figuring that hiring a lawyer to fight the matter in court would likely cost him as much as what Bad Hair Day was keeping.

 

So my question is...taking into account the obviously fabricated elements here, and the slightly facetious tone, and acknowledging that signing such a payment form as "Spoonman" did, without running it by more knowledgeable eyes, or for that matter without comparing such payment demands to those of other clinics, was highly unwise, does this sound way out of line? Has anyone here encountered such payment policies? And what about the threat against disclosing the refund terms, what do you think that was about? Could Spoonman have fought this policy and challenged the terms of the payment agreement, even though he had signed it? Neither "Spoonman" nor I are lawyers, so although this sounds highly suspect, if not outright unethical, to me, perhaps there is something I am missing.

 

To be even-handed, I can see Bad Hair Day's position: the cancellation was more or less last-minute, even if it was done for more than capricious reasons, and in theory the clinic had lost a slot that another paying person could otherwise have taken. My problem with this whole thing was that...

 

a) People cancel appointments all the time; that is what deposits are for. "Spoonman" wasn't asking for his deposit back; he was only asking that he not be forced to pay for something he didn't get.

 

b) Why the hardball? Yes, Bad Hair Day had the right to make money for their work, but it was a case of one somewhat scared, naive, and emotionally charged guy up against an intimidating and openly threatening legal document, and for what? See a).

 

CAVEAT FOLLICULI EMPTOR (or something like that)...indeed...

 

Benjamin

[Pat - Community Publisher]

Benjamin,

 

That not only sounds highly unethical it also sounds familiar and not very hypothetical.

 

In fact it sounds a lot like "my friend" who paid this same clinic an extremely large sum of money in advance for a body hair to scalp transplant. The end result of the surgery was there was not enough grafts for the money already spent. However, the physician was not willing to refund the short fall.

 

After one year and very poor growth overall the patient was still having issues just trying to just get this short fall amount refunded.

 

Finally this patient suggested to this physician that he would go online and share his horror story. This physician then threatened to sue the patient if he shared his "libelous" story online.

 

The patient caved into this intimidation and did not share his true account online.

 

Thus his story is only hypothetical. Sound familiar?

 

Pat

[FacelessMan]

That is a sad story. What makes the one I shared sad as well is that the surgeon related to it is reputed to be, in fact, quite skilled and talented, enough so that such harshness and litigious tactics seem unnecessary...did he really need to squeeze another $4 grand out of some guy?

 

All I can say is...thank you, Dr. Feller, firsthand, for being the doctor and professional you are...and also to the Hassons and Wongs and everyone else who treats their work and their patients with dignity and respect. Not to mention you, Pat, and people here who take time to try to help the rest of us sort this HT decision out...

 

I'd also like to thank Hair Cuttery for sucking enough that I was finally driven to find a competent stylist

 

Benjamin

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Ben,

The physician in your "hypothetical" is an oportunist-plain and simple.

 

As you pointed out, the whole point behind a "deposit" is to cover costs should a problem arise with the patient and he can't make it. But even this only applies on short notice, like within a week or so.

 

In our office we do take deposits, but if a paitent can't make a surgery and gives uf the courtesy of a phone call we will try to fill his day with someone else. Unfortunately, this doesn't always work out because most patients can't just put their lives on hold on short notice to fill someone elses spot, and more importantly it's hard to get lab work back in time on short notice. One other problem is that even they are willing and able, they may already have had alcohol or aspirin within the past week which can thin the blood and make the surgery quite difficult.

 

If the patient has paid for his entire procedure before the surgery, he will ALWAYS get his money back. Sometimes we will even give the deposit back if we can fill the space in enough time. It is wrong for your hypothetical doctor to do what he did.

 

Dr. Feller

[Guest Paul M Straub MD FACS]

We collect a deposit of $400 at time of scheduling. In theory if the patient cancels later than 7 days before surgery we keep the deposit. In reality I have always returned the deposit even when they canceled later than 7 days before surgery. In my opinion the ill will of taking someone's money and giving them nothing for it would be worse than the actual loss. Of course there always is an actual loss when a patient doesn't show up for surgery.

[Hoping]

Let me give you a little free legal advice for your friend. Lets assume your friend lives in Ohio and this doctor practices in California. Lets assume doctor sent the contract to Ohio to be signed by your friend? Now the Ohio courts have jurisdiction over anything regarding this contract and your friend can march down to his local small claims court, file a suit against said doctor, have doctor served in California, and doctor either responds or shows up in court at the designated time, or hires an expensive lawyer to do so for him, or there is a default against him.

 

Lets assume Doctor or his lawyer indeed shows up? Small claims court is the everyman court. A small claims court judge can do virtually anything he wants and if there is equity in your friend's cause, the Judge just might rule in his favor and simply ignore the contract. At any rate, can you imagine if people started suing this doctor in Small claims court on a regular basis? :-)

[Bill - Seemiller]

The latter part of this discussion only further proves why a community like this is so important and why it is so important to find an ethical doctor who is there for the patient's best interest...which includes his financial best interest. Now I've had 3 hair transplants and I didn't have to cancel or postpone any of them...but I would like to know that in the event of some kind of difficulty or problem that the doctor's would have been ethical enough to return my money. I'm certain the doctors I chose would have done that...and I'm thankful for the other ethical doctors out there that would also.

 

Bill