Michael Arnstein ran a gemstone and jewelry business in Manhattan. He was irked by a number of negative online reviews. So, what did he do? He fired up Photoshop. Between 2014 and 2017, Arnstein forged over ten court orders that he submitted to Google to de-index pages with unsavory comments of his business. 

He actually succeeded early on with what was a bona fide court order to take down 54 URLs. That order was signed by Judge Alison Nathan in 2012. But, then Arnstein took a short cut.  

In a note to his friend: 

“[N]o bullshit: if I could do it all over again I would have found another court order injunction for removal of links (probably something that can be found online pretty easily) made changes in photoshop to show the links that I wanted removed and then sent to ‘removals@google.com’ as a pdf – showing the court order docket number, the judges [sic] signature – but with the new links put in,” he wrote. 

“Google isn’t checking this stuff; that’s the bottom line b/c I spent $30,000 f****n thousand dollars and nearly 2 f***n years to do what legit could have been done for about 6 hours of searching and photoshop by a guy for $200., all in ONE DAY ….” 

To make his work appear legitimate, he had to forge the signature of a judge. A big no no.  

“Michael Arnstein’s blatant criminal scheme to exploit the authority of the federal judiciary for his company’s benefit was outrageous,” US Attorney Geoffrey Berman said at sentencing. 

“As Arnstein has learned, his attempts to remove negative reviews about his business from Google search results by forging a US District Court judge’s signature may have worked in the short term, but it also earned him nine months in a federal prison.” 

Once out of prison, he will have to serve two years of supervised release.  

And Arnstein had to pay a $20k fine. 

Google indexes all types of documents, including public legal documents. Google must have wondered why it could not find the public legal document Arnstein was using to mandate action. 

Arnstein is also an ultramarathon runner. If you do a Google search of his name, half the results on page one are about his athletic feats. The other half are about his impending prison term. 

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  

“Arnstein’s attempts to remove any trace of unfavorable information about his business posted online sent him down a slippery slope. Not only did he commit a federal crime by forging a judge’s signature in furtherance of his scheme, but he now finds himself back on the Internet. This time, however, it’s a story no search engine can erase.” 

In the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, William Blake wrote: The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. Arnstein probably had a different idea of palace when he took his less traveled road. 

In the event a patient posts negative sentiment online, do the following – first, don’t panic. The public doesn’t expect perfection. The occasional negative review is not a career ender. On the contrary, they can make positive patient sentiment appear more genuine. Secondly – formulate a strategy. Mastering the online review space is challenging. Aligning yourself with a trusted partner reduces risk – and improves outcomes. Medical Justice has developed a program that captures patient feedback (in the office / at the point of service) and uploads it to the internet.  

This promotes a doctor’s online reputation and protects him from defamation. 

To request more information, complete the form below – we’ll contact your office and determine how we can best serve your needs.  

Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, FACS

Chief Executive Officer and Founder

Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.

Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.

Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.

In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. With over 50 combined years of experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.

Normally, when a doctor is subjected to peer review over safety concerns, it is a cage fight. If the doctor loses, his career will be on life support. His reputation damaged. Reports made to licensing boards and National Practitioner Data Bank. He will wander in the desert for 40 years. 

Dr. Miguel Gomez never received THAT memo.  

A Court of Appeals upheld a $6M judgment awarded as the remedy against Memorial Hermann Hospital system. The charge: business disparagement, defamation, tortious interference, and restraint of trade.  

Dr. Gomez practices in Houston. Houston is ground zero for cardiothoracic surgery. That market is very competitive and each institution struggles to stand out.  

In the lawsuit filed in 2012, Gomez claimed: 

after he told Memorial Hermann’s then-CEO Keith Alexander he was concerned about the declining patient care at its hospital in Memorial City, a Houston business district, and threatened to move his practice to The Methodist Hospital, Alexander destroyed his reputation. 

A little history. 

Gomez began practicing at the hospital in 1998. He became known for robotic cardiac surgery. In 2009, his reputation was blemished after the hospital initiated a program to analyze patient outcomes.  

It hired Byron Auzenne to lead its heart service and made him the point man on reviewing heart doctors’ mortality rates, according to the case record.

Gomez learned that Memorial Hermann’s data demonstrated Gomez had a high mortality rate. The hospital was concerned federal funding sources would shut the cardiovascular program down.

His partner, Dr. Don Gibson, told Gomez “because of those reasons you’re going to be suspended or you’re going to be proctored” – monitored by other doctors during surgery, according to the ruling. 

Gomez testified that conversation left him in a state of shock. But he attributed the high mortality rate to the hospital’s use of raw data, which he told Auzenne was invalid because it was not risk-adjusted. 

Note: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons publishes its own database for risk-adjusted mortality. These risks include history of stroke, renal failure, obesity, and so on. Risk adjustment takes into account how sick the patient is. The sicker the patient is, the higher the mortality rate. The patient is a partner in driving that statistic, not merely the surgeon. 

The head of the hospital’s peer review committee testified after reviewing the data, his committee concluded none of the 4 heart surgeons would be suspended. They did not need proctoring. This same committee admonished Auzenne to stop using flawed data that failed to adjust for risk.  

Gomez thought that was the end of the matter; that he could breathe a sigh of relief. 

Not so.  

Hospital administrators again cited misleading data in 2011. Auzenne apparently told Gomez: 

that he and CEO Alexander had decided the “data needed to be shared, that we needed to be a transparent organization, that this was a safety issue,” and he had shown the data to other physicians who referred patients to Gomez so they could make informed decisions. 

The court stated there was no evidence that the person who made the defamatory statements did so to someone who could take action if the mortality stats were accurate, or that it was made out of concern for patient safety.  

The hospital argued that Gomez now enjoys a good reputation and doctors refer to him. But, an expert witness testified that there was a decline in patient volume that began in 2009 and continued for years. She argued his practice never recovered.  

The reputational hit affected Gomez directly.

His wife said the data portraying her husband as a bad doctor left him feeling like he “ha[d] this huge scarlet letter on him.” She said he stopped eating, started pacing incessantly in their home and became an insomniac. 

She testified Gomez “just stuffed it all inside and went and crawled in a hole,” and she recalled him saying, “I don’t think I’m going to operate anymore.” 

The $6M should ease the sting. Memorial Hermann is still considering appealing to a higher court.  

The road to this appellate victory was not easy. On the path, Gomez needed to claw peer review records from the hospital. That required an appeal all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court.  

Next, the hospital argued, it had a qualified privilege to make even defamatory statements unless made with malice. Malice here means the person making the statement did so knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Gomez argued that the hospital’s whisper campaign was made with malice, so any privilege, even if it did exist, would not apply. 

The Texas Medical Association (TMA) backed Gomez. It stated that blindly immunizing institutions against these kinds of disparaging statements can abuse the law’s noble purpose. In theory, hospitals are supposed to promote patient safety. But any tool can be refashioned to achieve other ends – such as retaliation. 

TMA warns that protecting these kinds of disparaging statements opens the door for health care facilities “to shield their anti-competitive and retaliatory behavior towards physicians under the guise of common interest and patient safety concerns.” Physicians would risk retaliation for making everyday patient treatment decisions, TMA adds. 

“Personal reputation is the most important thing a physician has,” TMA wrote. “It is important to fairly balance patient-safety care concerns with the harm caused to the reputation of the physician when such concerns are false, especially when there is evidence of anti-competitive or retaliatory behavior. Unbridled use of the privilege poses a threat to all Texas physicians and their practices.”

The court agreed. 

Such outcomes are rare. Doctors need to find competent counsel, have a legal war chest, and be prepared for a long fight. While fighting, they may become unemployable. 

When your reputation is under scrutiny, counter-narratives are critical. If there are no counter-narratives, you risk defamation. The reason is simple – if no one is speaking up for you, patients and colleagues will likely believe whatever they are told. And if the story told is one-sided, your reputation will suffer. 

Great doctors will always be great doctors – but a great doctor’s quality of care is not always reflected accurately online. To help doctors address this problem, Medical Justice created eMerit – a platform that captures patient feedback in the office and uploads it to the internet. This promotes the doctor’s online reputation and protects him from defamation – assuming the captured feedback is favorable.  

We’ve helped thousands of doctors guard their reputations against bad actors and expand their reach of care.  

To learn how this tool works in detail, click here… 

In this example, David bested Goliath. The underdog (Dr. Miguel Gomez) prevailed.  

What do you think? Let us know your thoughts below.

Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Chief Executive Officer and Founder

Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.

Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.

In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. With over 50 combined years of experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.

. 

In Texas, there’s a law – Section 33.07(a)(2) which makes it a felony to use the name or persona of another person to create a web page or post on a social networking site if the action is taken to harm, threaten, defraud or intimidate the other person.  

A patient in Austin posted the following reviews: 

“When I noticed that my insurance totally paid for what I paid in cash in the office, I called them. Unprofessional staff hung up right in my face. … Only after the BBB complaint process completed, did I finally receive a refund check from these losers.” 

Another review excerpt allegedly from the same reviewer posting under an alias: “Can you say FRAUD? Busted, Austin Eye!” 

This patient supposedly posted over 100 reviews from 20 different aliases.  

What was his beef? 

In March 2017, he underwent a refractive exam by Austin Eye to determine if his visual impairment could be corrected with glasses or contacts. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of such an exam. The ophthalmology practice asked the patient to pay upfront for that exam. It was $45.  

Well, the insurance carrier did pay. So, the practice mailed the patient a reimbursement check.  

The patient called the practice and said his check was damaged and asked a second check be mailed. The practice asked the damaged check be mailed back to the practice. The patient refused.  

Regardless, the ophthalmology practice complied and mailed a replacement $45 check to the patient. He deposited that check.  

Then the patient got a bee in his bonnet. He filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, Texas Medical Board, and Dept Health and Human Services. Jeez. 

The doctor sent a photocopy of the check the patient deposited in his account. The patient countered the photocopy was doctored – no pun intended.  

All of these complaints against the physician were dismissed. 

But, wait. There’s more.  

On a single day in September 2017, the patient posted false 1 star reviews from nine different accounts. His allegations were the same – the practice double billed the patient and only refunded his money after considerable effort.  

The practice sent cease and desist letters. The patient would not change his ways. So, Austin Eye sued the patient for defamation and business disparagement.  

The patient countersued alleging the practice divulged confidential patient information. The court dismissed the countersuit. The judge ruled the patient did defame Austin Eye and ordered the patient to pay the practice $76,000 in sanctions, $24,000 in attorney’s fees, and $1 in “nominal damages.” 

But wait, there’s more. 

The state indicted the patient criminally for online impersonation – essentially cyberstalking to harass. An appeals court rejected the patient’s appeal of the indictment.  

This is an unusual outcome. Doctors rarely win in defamation suits against patients. But, this is an unusual case. The patient went from merely expressing an opinion to trying to destroy a practice. Some have argued that the Texas statute amounts to an infringement against constitutionally protected speech. Physicians have limited opportunities to supply a counternarrative to false and defamatory speech. HIPAA and state privacy laws tie the doctor’s hands.  

Here, common sense prevailed. Remember, this was a beef over $45. And the doctor’s office did nothing wrong. Even if a mistake was made, it was quickly corrected. But imagine this patient found a sympathetic audience. That $45 beef  would have devolved into an expensive exercise in reputation repair for the doctor.

Sometimes hazardous patients can be identified before they create problems. In such cases, it is best to end the doctor-patient relationship. But this isn’t always possible. Some obstacles don’t manifest until after treatment has concluded. 

Medical Justice offers solutions to doctors in both scenarios. We provide tools for diagnosing future problems and foreclosing bad outcomes. And if a malicious entity has injured your online reputation, we offer remedies. The articles below contain practices anyone can apply. To gain access to our most powerful solutions, click here to discover the benefits of membership. 

Whether or not the patient spends any time in prison will depend upon a jury’s verdict and a judge’s discretion, if any. 

What do you think? Click here to leave a comment and join the discussion below.

Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Chief Executive Officer and Founder

Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.

Dr. Segal received his M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.

In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. With over 50 combined years of experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.

If you’ve read our content before, you know we consider patient reviews powerful marketing tools. But patient reviews have other applications as well – they offer physicians and their staff an opportunity to examine themselves from the public’s perspective. That perspective is made possible by patient feedback. If they are willing, doctors can use patient feedback to refine their quality of care (outcomes, safety, and patient experience). This piece will explain how in four steps.  

In order of execution, they are… 

Step 1 – Collect patient feedback… 

Step 2 – Qualify patient feedback… 

Step 3 – Diagnose perceived problems… 

Step 4 – Remedy perceived problems… 

Not all patient reviews are created equal. Patients may give their physicians poor ratings for arbitrary reasons. We won’t waste your time listing examples here – if you’re curious, we published strategies for combating such reviews in February.  

The purpose of this piece is to persuade doctors that negative reviews cannot be ignored or discarded, simply because they are unfavorable. You wouldn’t discard a bill before confirming the charges are valid. It won’t make the charges disappear. Apply the same principle to your patients’ feedback. 

If there’s an expensive or dangerous problem underfoot, you need to address it. As a physician, you are obligated to address it. And the fastest and most reliable way of doing so is to engage the entities most affected by those potential problems – your patients.  

We start at the beginning. You must first collect patient feedback. 

You can’t learn from feedback that does not exist. And if you don’t have any patient reviews (or don’t know where they are), that’s a problem you need to address. For multiple reasons. First – patients use the feedback of other patients to make decisions about their healthcare. And second – favorable feedback has the power to protect and promote a physician’s online reputation.

A physician lacking patient reviews has no defense against online defamation. If a patient (or a malicious entity posing as a patient) posts a defamatory remark online, there’s no counter-narrative for patients to consider. The physician is defined by that defamatory post. And because of HIPAA, the physician cannot carelessly converse with the malicious entity.  

If the troublemaker is in fact a patient, arguing with him may lead the physician to (unintentionally) expose the patient’s Protected Health Information (PHI). Something as benign as betraying a last name can incur a violation. And those violations carry steep fines. If you want to learn how to avoid making this mistake (and many others), we suggest checking out our previous blog post. 

If the physician has cultivated many reviews over time, the impact of that defamatory post is mitigated. This is because there are counter-narratives – the doctor is not defined by a single voice. If patient sentiment is overall positive, most will dismiss the negative review as an anomaly. A few unfavorable reviews can humanize a physician – you are not perfect, and neither are the patients you treat. As an aside – if your patient expects perfection, proceed with caution.

Used strategically, patient reviews attract the attention of new patients while simultaneously protecting the physician from bad actors – they are both signals and shields. But until your practice optimizes the collection and publication of these materials, you cannot reliably benefit from them.  

This gives rise to a new question – how do physicians collect and publish patient feedback successfully? 

Asking patients for feedback is the obvious answer, but if you go about this the wrong way, you’ll waste time. And money. An entire industry orbits around collecting and publishing patient reviews. Having witnessed (and created) the birth of that industry, here’s our opinion… 

Impersonal collection techniques – emails, text messages, ink and paper reminders – yield impersonal results. These are not perceived as benign requests. These are irritants. They invade the patient’s life after he’s left your practice. 

If you want the patient to take your request for feedback seriously, ask for feedback before he exits the door. Ask your practice manager to describe how patients move in and out of your environment. Study the patient’s journey and determine the most appropriate time to ask for feedback. Or instruct your staff to make these discoveries. 

Your window of opportunity is small. Make the act of writing the review immediate by presenting the patient with a device that makes collecting feedback easy, quick, and immediate. We find point-of-service tools excel in this role. 

An important legal note – if you intend to post feedback online, you must obtain a patient’s authorization to do so. Posting patient feedback online without the patient’s written permission is a HIPAA violation. This is one of many regulatory landmines catching doctors off-guard. Learn about the rest by reading this article, published on our companion website, eMerit.biz.  

Onto step two – qualify the patient feedback you’ve already received. And implement a strategy to qualify future feedback.

We’ll conclude this section with a free tool that will identify where many of your existing reviews are housed online.  Let’s dive in.  

Start by rounding up all the ink and paper surveys you’ve distributed. Identify the locations of digital reviews next. Start by checking websites like Google, Vitals, Healthgrades, RateMDs, Yelp, and if you are an aesthetic surgeon, RealSelf. Google your name. Google the name of your practice. Take screenshots of what you find. This is how Google presents you to patients. If you like (or dislike) what you see, channel those emotions into maintaining (or revitalizing) your online reputation. 

Regardless of what you look like online, your objective is this: Make that Google impression as favorable as possible.  

Ask your staff to transcribe all feedback (paper and digital) to a mother document. Review this document as a team. Create an environment that encourages participation from everyone. Every human who interacts with your patients must feel empowered to speak. Otherwise important details will slip through the cracks.  

This ritual must become routine. Complete this exercise as often as necessary to keep stock of your reputation – weekly, monthly, quarterly, whatever suits your schedule.  

Many businesses offer online reputation monitoring for a small fee. Some offer that service for a not-so-small fee. We do it for free – for six months. Enrolling will help you identify reviews currently posted online. Good and bad. You’ll access this information from your Members Only page – a dashboard normally made available only to Medical Justice members.  

To enroll, follow the link below. If you qualify, we’ll notify you when we are ready to implement.

Once you’ve assembled a library of patient feedback, you must diagnose perceived problems.  

We recognize not all feedback is created equal. Ideally, you should review every piece of feedback yourself – but doctors have a limited amount of spare time. Make your staff a part of this process. But keep in mind there are certain patient complaints the untrained will fail to identify.  

Doctors enrolled in our paid reputation marketing service benefit from the expertise of our communication specialists. Their job is to identify such feedback and present solutions to our clients. They know HIPAA. They know healthcare. And most importantly, they know how to keep you out of the cross-hairs. 

Another reason why you should lay your eyes on everything at least once: Many patients complain about their interactions with a physician’s staff. Your staff is well-trained, and you trust them. We hope you do, anyway. But a staff member may feel inclined to bury a review that criticizes themselves or their coworkers. 

If there is a problem with how your staff treats patients, you need to know. If you encounter a scathing review about your staff, let them tell their side of the story. You know your employees better than the patients blasting them. Diagnose the problem as a team and implement solutions together.  

A negative review is your treasure map. If you follow it, you’ll find the source of the perceived problem. Once you identify the problem, you can do what doctors have been trained to do – treat the problem. Prescribing a plan of action for this step is difficult. It is impossible to predict the obstacles you’ll encounter. In lieu of a precise strategy, here’s a list of “common complaints” you should digest in preparation. You may never encounter these dilemmas at your practice – but ask yourself how you’d address these complaints should you receive them…

“The doctor rushed me through my appointment!”

“The staff was rude – and I waited an extra half-hour.”

“He didn’t prescribe the antibiotics I need.”

“I was overcharged, and the practice refuses to refund my money!”

The next (and final) step: After diagnosing the problem, repair it. 

If the problem is localized – that is, if it has something to do with your own behavior or the behavior of your staff – fixing the problem is “easy.” You can modify your own behavior and attempt to modify the behavior of your staff.  

But sometimes there is no “problem”, despite the patient’s insistence that there is a problem. Not even the best doctor can fix a problem that doesn’t exist. In such cases, you’ve two options… 

Your first option is to contact the patient directly and ask him how he’d like to see the “problem” resolved. If what he wants cannot be accommodated, provide alternatives. Some patients are irrational and can’t be reasoned with, but others may change their attitude if the physician takes steps to educate them. 

Your second option is to take the offensive and implement a “dilution” strategy. Ask patients who like you to post their experiences online. One negative review drifting among many positive reviews will appear like a desert island to new patients – isolated, uninhabited, insignificant. A poor (or false) indication of your true quality of care. 

As for which strategy to utilize, we suggest doing both. The first strategy could be described as corrective. Utilize it when complaints emerge. The second strategy is preventative. Use it before complaints emerge. Populating the internet with accurate expressions of your quality of care will make it difficult for the angry and the spiteful to injure your online reputation.  

Candidly – Medical Justice offers a robust online reputation management platform. If you are a good fit for the program, we’d love to show you how it works. But here’s the quick and dirty value statement:

Doctors enrolled in the program don’t have occupy themselves with most of the activities we’ve described.  

They must ask patients for feedback. They must take this action before a patient leaves their practice. And they must work with their staff to predict and resolve patient complaints when they arise. In short – they are obligated to do what is expected of them.   

We handle the laborious tasks. We publish the reviews on your behalf – with your patients’ permission. We monitor your online reputation and provide updates. We co-author responses to negative reviews (when appropriate) and assist in neutralizing disputes. 

The program exists for two reasons: To keep your online reputation out of the cross-hairs and to help new patients find you online.  Complete the form below to signal your interest to a representative. We’ll schedule a brief call to determine if the program is a good fit for your practice. This article concludes below the form.

Translating patient feedback into a prescription for self-improvement takes time and requires the cooperation of an entire practice. You’ll obviously spend time reading patient feedback. You’ll read a lot of garbage. But it is likely you’ll uncover valuable insights as well.  

And look at it this way: If a scathing review compels you to implement a change that reduces a patient’s pain or expense, isn’t that a positive outcome?

Let us know your answer in the comments below… 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

With our pioneering combination of medico-legal expertise, resources, and medical reputation management services, Medical Justice delivers as seasoned advisors and formidable advocates. We’re the first call doctors make when they sense trouble. We stand vigilantly by our member physicians with guidance and grit, relentlessly clearing out frivolous lawsuits before they start, and being the go-to for guidance when situations are at their most bewildering.

The answer to that question will tell you a lot. How are patients finding you? Are your current marketing efforts making a difference online? Are you defined by many patients, or just a few angry ones? With more patients trusting online reviews than ever before, it pays to know how Google is marketing your name.

Your online reputation analysis will show you how Google is marketing you. We organize every online review we can find into one easy-to-read report. By studying your analysis, you’ll see what new patients see when they look you up online. This data will help you diagnose the health of your online reputation and inform future action.