Medical Justice provides free consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

A Washington attorney general is suing a Seattle-based plastic surgeon. And considering the facts as we understand them, if accurate as alleged, it’s difficult to imagine the surgeon’s career surviving the fallout. Time will tell. The attorney general alleges the practice used a combination of bribes and threats to prevent patients from posting negative online reviews. And that’s not all – but we’ll get to those details in a bit.  

The attorney general recently filed a lawsuit against the practice, Allure Esthetic, and the practice’s owner, Dr. Javad Sajan. Investigators interviewed about 40 former employees and ten patients. The lawsuit claims around 10,000 patients signed non-disclosure agreements designed to penalize them if they posted negative sentiment online.   

By way of background, Allure Esthetic offers surgical and non-surgical treatments, including Botox injections and gender-affirming care.  

The attorney general learned of the practice’s behavior by listening to the testimonies of former patients. Investigators also consulted prospective clients dismissed by the practice. It should be noted some prospective clients departed Allure voluntarily, often after learning of the practice’s liberal use of advance non-disclosure agreements.   

To provide an example: Cynthia Tamlyn approached the practice with her loved one, whom our source refers to as “John.” When the couple requested a summary of the practice’s HIPAA policy, Allure refused to provide one. The practice then insisted that John sign a non-disclosure agreement. John signed the document, but after discussing the matter with Cynthia, decided to terminate their relationship with the practice.  

As we stated previously, the non-disclosure agreement discouraged patients from posting negative reviews (meaning less than 4 stars). What would happen to patients if they posted negative reviews anyway?  

The practice is accused of answering negative sentiment in one of two ways:   

The practice promised the author a cash incentive (characterized by the attorney general as a bribe) to remove the review…  

or  

The practice threatened to sue the author…  

The cash incentive wasn’t always offered. Sometimes the practice just threatened to sue.   

If the patient accepted the bribe, Allure allegedly required that patient sign another non-disclosure agreement that promised a $250,000 fine would follow any more negative reviews.  

The doctor-patient relationship is built on trust; threatening patients with a $250,000 hammer doesn’t build trust.  

Victoria Hester, another prospective patient, scheduled an initial consultation after reading positive reviews about the practice online. Hester claims the practice made disparaging remarks about their body before dismissing them.  

“I broke out in tears and quickly ran out of the office, because I was so embarrassed and so traumatized and so humiliated,” Hester said. “What about these five-star reviews that I saw posted? What about all the rave reviews that Dr. Sajan really cared about transgender people?”  

When Hester posted a review describing their experience, the practice contacted them and threatened litigation.  

If this was “all” Allure was allegedly doing, the attorney general’s lawsuit would still be an outcome from hell.   

But there’s more.   

The practice allegedly posted fake 5-star reviews and associated these fake reviews with modified “before-and-after” photographs. Was Victoria motivated to schedule a consultation after reading fake reviews? Don’t know. But it is possible. And if Victoria was encouraged by those fake reviews, other patients were likewise motivated. 

Not to pile on, but consider the following: Did those pictures depict the practice’s actual patients? If so, did the practice have permission to post them online? If the models depicted were not patients, where did the images originate? Our source material doesn’t say. But in these situations, litigators tend to uncover as many rocks as possible in pursuit of potential damages – which is why it is critical to obtain a patient’s express written consent prior to using their image in your marketing.  

And then there’s the alleged rebate fraud.   

“[Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson] said the company used real patient names and birthdates to register for rebates on a skincare brand they use on patients. Allure is accused of then pocketing the money that should have gone to the consumers.”  

The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the non-disclosure agreements. It also seeks $7,500 in damages per violation, and that patients are refunded their $100 consultation fees. With 10,000 affected patients, the math becomes daunting. 

A case study demonstrating how not to behave. Perhaps the facts as alleged by the attorney general are not the full story. We’ll eventually learn as this case percolates. If accurate, it’s hard to imagine any doctor coming back from allegations like these. We understand the desire to tell “your side of the story” in the event of conflict, but binding patient behavior in 2023 via contract before being seen won’t work. Since the Consumer Review Fairness Act was passed by Congress in 2016, the law has changed, and the world has changed.  

What do you think?

Medical Justice provides free consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a free consultation – or use the tool shared 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. 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. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. 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.