Bet you didn’t know that you needed to not only brush your teeth but brush up on your copyright law before heading to the dentist. A disgruntled patient left a nasty Yelp review of his doctor but was confused to find out that he didn’t own the copyright to the review, the dentist did. The dentist is now the one with the ache after losing a lawsuit to the patient.

To say this is an unusual tale, is an understatement. Back in 2010, Robert Lee visited Dr. Stacy Makhnenvich in New York City because of a toothache. Before being treated, Lee was handed a bunch of forms, usual for a doctor’s office, but not so usual was one entitled “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy”. The agreement falsely recited some HIPAA laws and stated that the patient would refrain from publishing commentary about the dentist and assigned all copyrights in any such statements to the dentist. Lee was told he would not be treated by the dentist unless he signed the agreement. Lee left with a better tooth but also a whopping $4,776 bill that he reluctantly paid hoping that insurance would cover the claim when the records were submitted. Lee moved and despite several requests the doctor’s office never forwarded the medical records to the insurance company and Lee was stuck with the bill.

In August 2011, Lee did what all red-blooded Americans do: he took to the Internet to complain. Lee detailed his awful experience with the doctor on Yelp and other websites. The doctor’s office then sent a DMCA take down letter to to the websites demanding that they take down the commentary because the doctor owned the copyright to the reviews. At this point, the doctor’s office also violated several HIPAA rules by disclosing personal information about the patient such as his height, weight and address when trying to get the review taken down. Lee filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of him and other similarly situated plaintiffs declaring that the “Mutual Agreement” was unconscionable and was unfair business practices.

The dentist hired counsel and was defending the action and then disappeared; plaintiff believes she headed to France. Her attorney made a motion to be relieved as counsel and the court entered a default against the defendant. On Friday, the court entered a judgment against Dr. Makhnenvich holding that the copyright assignment was void due to lack of consideration, for unconscionability, and was an unfair business practice. Lee was awarded his $4,776 back and was awarded his costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount not yet determined but I’m sure substantial after 4 years of litigation. Still no word from the disappearing dentist but she is going to have to up her copay to cover these expenses.