Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>1. UHC’s rep said the issue was non urgent and asked for a call back “when convenient to you”. This differs from the social media post claiming that UHC called and demanded she “scrub out of surgery” and “call right now”.

Based on my experience with some hospitals, it's possible that something like this happened:

UHC [on phone]: We'd like to speak to Dr. X when possible

Reception [on phone]: Sure, s/he's available

Reception [to doctor]: Stop the surgery! United Healthcare needs to speak to you immediately!

Dr. X [frantically undressing]: I can't believe these vampires are so demanding!

Disclaimer: I contract for hospitals. I usually have good experiences working with management, doctors, nurses, and technologists. Practically all of the bad experiences are with reception and security (a few places are good at it, but not most). I've never seen people more devoted to making sure things don't get done. I am always happy to give them my ID, my company ID, use the metal detector, search the bag — I don't care. But they always, inexplicably, insist on calling someone in the department, who is usually busy, who doesn't need to actually do anything, and nonetheless, we must slow everything down and bother them. I don't know who writes these policies, but I could see this happening.



That's certainly plausible... however, UHC is not saying "the doctor got it wrong, it was her receptionist's fault". They are sending legal threats - "take this speech down or we'll sue you for defamation". This is not a company trying to take their name out of the mud, this is a company trying to cut off their critics' tongues, because the critique is hurting the stock price.


I've heard on the youtubes that "provably false statements" are considered "defamation" in some jurisdictions.

But what do lawyers know?


In America - the only jurisdiction that matters in this case - defamation requires knowingly lying or having "a reckless disregard for the truth". If UHC actually sued Elisabeth Potter, they'd lose, although she'd also lose because she would have had to pay at least five figures for a competent defense.

But if you really want to talk about other jurisdictions, there's plenty of opportunities for censorious fuckery. Just off the top of my head (and limited to capital-W Western[0] countries):

- English defamation law is notorious for having a low bar for legal action.

- Japanese defamation law only exempts true statements that are in the "public interest".

[0] Having a liberal constitution and rule of law


That was my guess, too.

The surgeon went to social media blaming UHC for everything, with the assumption that her own staff couldn't have been part of the miscommunication or paperwork errors.

UHC comes back, with receipts, showing that the error is somewhere on the hospital side.


UHC is still legally deficient in that hypothetical. Defamation of a public figure needs actual malice and knowledge (or reckless indifference) of falsehood—both absent.

There's a large gulf between being wrong and being libelous.


Not necessarily. They sent her a letter asking her to retract her post. If she refuses to do this, then they have grounds for knowledge and malice.


That's not actual malice. The doctor has no positive obligation to spend time reading UHC's letters pleading their version of the story, or interact with them in any way at all. Failure to engage with them is not malice.


> I've never seen people more devoted to making sure things don't get done.

This is the truth. People do not understand the depths of hell you are in when you are dealing with hospital admins.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: