Woman Sues Plastic Surgeon For $23 Million Because He Put Before/After Pictures Of Her On The Web
from the proportionality-means-something dept
A bunch of folks have sent in variations on the following story involving Catherine Manizone, who had a nose job done a few years ago by plastic surgeon Grigoriy Mashkevich, but who is now suing him for $23 million. You might think that the lawsuit is about the nose job gone wrong. But, no, her complaint is that Dr. Mashkevich put "before" and "after" pictures he took of Manizone online as an example of his work. $23 million? New York does have a relatively strong "publicity rights" law -- which are state based laws that are being increasingly expanded and abused these days. However, at their core, the idea is that people wouldn't be put in advertisements or seen as endorsing a product or service without their permission. So, perhaps there's a small publicity rights claim here, though it would be surprising if Dr. Mashkevich never actually had patients sign a release form for the use of such photos (Update: there is evidence that she signed a form saying the photos were only for her confidential files, so it appears that he did fail to get the proper permission). Of course, even if he failed in that basic step, the idea that having these photos posted online should lead to a $23 million award is just insane.Equally as ridiculous is the idea that finding these pictures online caused such horrible harm to Manizone and her reputation. In the lawsuit, she explains the "harm" the photos have caused:
Plaintiff has been, is and will continue to be greatly distressed and humiliated, has been, is and will continue to be exposed to public ridicule and contempt; and the plaintiff has been, is and will continue to be greatly injured in her reputation and has been, is and will continue to be otherwise greatly injured.Of course, there are a few issues with this. First, the surgery happened in January of 2011 "to improve her appearance, self esteem and confidence" but she didn't notice the photos online until February 2013. If she didn't even know the photos were online for two years how could she possibly have been so greatly distressed by the photos online? If they were really causing her to be "exposed to public ridicule and contempt" then, um, wouldn't she have examples of that actually happening?
As Plaintiff's photographs are still available for viewing on the World Wide Web, Plaintiff's damages continue to accrue to date and will continue for an undeterminable period of time.
Second, I'm still trying to figure out why she would have been subject to "public ridicule and contempt" merely for getting a nose job. I mean, I guess it's possible, but wouldn't people who already knew her simply notice the nose job? And would people who didn't know her really care at all?
Finally, and most importantly, it seems likely that filing a highly questionable $23 million lawsuit against your plastic surgeon is a hell of a lot more likely to create public ridicule and contempt than any before and after photos of a nose job. So, will she be suing her lawyer next for being "greatly distressed and humiliated" while being "exposed to public ridicule and contempt" for filing this lawsuit? And, of course, if she was concerned that people would know she got a nose job because of the photos, which even she didn't realize existed for two years, shouldn't someone have pointed out to her that filing a public lawsuit like this would be a hell of a lot more likely to draw attention to the fact that she got a nose job?
Again, if it really is true that he used her images without signed permission, there may be a minor publicity rights issue, but the claims about public ridicule and contempt, along with the idea that the photos created massive damages, just don't make any sense. Combined with the insane request for $23 million, the whole thing really feels a lot more like a money grab than a serious complaint.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: catherine manizone, grigoriy mashkevich, lawsuits, privacy, reputation, rights of publicity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
...Manizones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/doc-posts-womans-nose-job-pics-online-she-sues-18-6C1044 7496
link has a pic to a scan of her intake form(?) not authorizing the use of the photos.
Doesn't make this much less crazy though.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? 675.000 $ for sharing 30 songs (sold at .99 each) apparently is perfectly fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, they are going to want to advertise their services and what better way than before/after pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just about publicity rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, where's my $23 million?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it's an unreasonable money grab? What's your point? I can sue you for eleventy billion dollars for beaming radio waves into my head, doesn't mean squat. It might be news if I won, but she's a long way from that.
We get it, you think government and laws are universally corrupt and unnecessary.
Is there any civil lawsuit for anything that you feel is legitimate and wouldn't be better handled through social shaming or something like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you new to the internet or something? Why did you come to a blog that talks primarily about internet related lawsuits and laws?
Is this just one stop on your stupid trolling day? What else did you do, go on an Entertainment blog and ask why they are blogging about Kim Kardasian?
Did you comment on an economics blog and ask what's the point of discussing the bonds market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Slow commenting day? Normal people who see a headline they're not interested in move on without reading it, or they read the story anyway, roll their eyes and carry on their day. AC commenters here seem unable to ignore a story, and have to make a derogatory comment on every one of them, attacking the site for daring to write something they don't find interesting... I wonder what the mental affliction that causes this is called.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I think she deserves $23 million dollars? Absolutely not because that's ridiculous. Such an amount would either be up to either the judge (if there's no jury) or the jury to determine what amount she's allowed to.
'm also going to be shocked if the New York State Medical Board doesn't revoke his license, suspend him or levy a huge fine for violating patient privacy laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nig-.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The woman is right - only the amount the doc should pay is in question.
Medical files - including photos - are confidential. Without specific and informed consent to the contrary the doc had no right to post details from her medical files. None.
$23 million is way too high, but that doesn't make her wrong in principle. Just because the Streisand effect may cause more publicity doesn't mean she shouldn't sue. The Streisand effect shouldn't be a "get-out-of-responsibility-free" card for doctors who violate doctor patient confidentiality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The woman is right - only the amount the doc should pay is in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The woman is right - only the amount the doc should pay is in question.
She is an idiot, she should have just asked him nicely. Now everyone is looking for the before and after shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The woman is right - only the amount the doc should pay is in question.
You mean like in the documents bbefore the surgery? something like " I DO NOT AUTHORIZE ANY USE OF MY PHOTOS blablabla" ? yes, if only she did that
..oh wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The woman is right - only the amount the doc should pay is in question.
Ever heard of reading a post before replying to it? My post specifically mentions the Streisand effect, and that it shouldn't be considered a "get out of responsibility free" card.
Yes, the woman may get more publicity over this, but that doesn't mean the doc should get off free. Streisand wanted to shut down the legal posting of photos taken from a collection of photos meant to keep the public informed about the Californian coastline - which belongs to all Californians - so that people wouldn't get to see pictures of her coastal house. She demanded something she had no legal right to, and ironically more people learned about her house because of her unreasonable demands.
In this case a doctor posted photos he had no right to post and a woman is suing for compensation. The cases are not the same. And while the Streisand effect may cause more publicity, she has a right to sue and she probably feels that the cat is out of the bag anyway so the extra publicity doesn't matter. What matters is that the doctor should compensate her. Yes, $23 million is an outrageous amount to demand, but that is a separate issue from her right to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a "Before and After" Caltholic Confession?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a "Before and After" Caltholic Confession?
In a similar fashion, if he is showing her nose without the rest of her face being recognizable, it's not that different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about a "Before and After" Caltholic Confession?
As if you need a name to ID people from a photo.
And I'd say your pastor may well be in the wrong in talking about counseling sessions. Kind of depends on how specific he is. Just a few vague details could add up enough make it obvious who he's taking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Update: there is evidence that she signed a form"
SO he's left with $23 million is too much. May be. Big deal.
This bit is classic UN-self-aware Mike:
"Second, I'm still trying to figure out why she would have been subject to "public ridicule and contempt" merely for getting a nose job. I mean, I guess it's possible, but wouldn't people who already knew her simply notice the nose job?"
GOSH, MIKE, maybe by having every frat boy with a blog make fun of her? Sheesh.
The important point here is that Mike runs items that he's forced to update within an hour or so and blow away his own position! Man, how many times can he get away with sloppy work before the fanboys truly see him? A guy whose schtick is to complain about similar sloppiness and use it to undermine copyright / DMCA / patents and so on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updates are a good thing
I think Mike went overboard on this post, however I think his update policies are good. He's not afraid to post updates to stories, even if they undercut his original take. I don't always agree with him, but I think his editorial policies are generally pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Update: there is evidence that she signed a form"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Update: there is evidence that she signed a form"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say the amount should be mostly punitive. He probably makes a lot of money based on advertising his services, all of that that used her picture he has no right to.
And I'm very suspicious of people who complain that because she got the surgery to improve her self-esteem that there is some problem with pointing out he harmed it by violating her privacy. The whole idea of a nose job suggests that the patients will be emotionally fragile. And getting the surgery is embarrassing and private and something people normally keep private. So yeah, the doctor harmed her in exactly the area he had helped. In my view that makes it all that much worse, both from a moral view, and also considering the harm done. And he should indeed know better.
My question, how much does this doctor make and is $23m really enough to discourage this behavior? It may turn out to be too high, or too low; I just don't understand why Mike Masnick has it out for this woman and wants to ridicule her. It doesn't exactly reduce her complaints. She certainly has every right to protect and control her image. This isn't a case of an eager litigant, but somebody who has had their personal image misappropriated not only in violation of signed agreements, but in violation of medical privacy. Litigating is her only recourse, and so itself should be no cause for ridicule. I can only assume that Mr. Masnick is ridiculing her because she got plastic surgery. And the only reason Mr. Masnick knows about it, is that this Dr. Mashkevich violated her privacy.
Really, I think Mr. Masnick should delete the story, and replace it with an apology to Catherine Manizone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If she really only cared about her pictures not being released she would have asked the doc to take them down and if she really suspects mischief and is afraid of a serial offender she could notify a supervisory board of some kind.
This is the same as someone suing McDonald's over too hot coffee - yes you may be in the right but the reaction is over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually it isn't. Mike takes issue with the suit itself, not merely the amount.
Mike claims that the amount is the final and most important point, but it isn't. The doctor violated patient confidentiality. And he's done it before and had to settle a lawsuit. So he knows better. Quibble over the amount, sure, but not whether a doctor should be able to use private medical records to publicize his practice. He did not have permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The lawsuit over the hot coffee was only filed after McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills for **skin grafts**. The woman got burns down to the *bone* from the extreme temperature of the coffee.
McDonald's knew people were being scalded by their coffee but rather than reducing it to a temperature safe to hand people through their driver side windows where at least some would foreseeable spill it, they decided that lawsuits were cheaper. The plaintiffs did not ask for the big verdict, rather the jury decided to fine McDonald s three days worth of coffee profits. Small fines don't phase corporations and are why McDonald's didn't make their coffee safe. The award was later reduced on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I find it incredible how many people completely misunderstand that lawsuit, and how readily they dismiss it without any understanding of the real facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People misunderstand the Streisand Effect.
If someone just wants to keep something under wraps then filing a public law suite, and causing more publicity, can be counter productive. We especially enjoy the Schadenfreude engendered when someone uses **bogus** legal threats that backfire on them them resulting in publicity that is cross purposes to their bogus, anti-free speech threats. That is the Streisand Effect.
However, suing someone for *damages* for violating client patient confidentiality is not the Streisand Effect. Yes, the pictures may get some more publicity, but they are out of the bag due to the doctor's apparent negligence. That can't be put back in the bag. So when the purpose of the suit is to hold someone responsible for their negligence then the Streisand Effect is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People misunderstand the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See the following link for HIPPA violation penalties:
http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/co ding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforce ment.page
Even the most severe HIPPA penalty for "offenses committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm" carries a maximum of $250,000 fine per offense, but it can also result in up to ten years imprisonment.
So yea, this appears to be more of a money grab than an attempt to get justice for a wrong committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who do you think came up with the $23 million amount, her or the lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she suffered cause of that, it is her problem! Nobody treated her badly that she finally found out that the reason were those photos in internet... Hope the judge will be wise enough to bang such egoist psychopaths, her and the lawyer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plastic Surgeons Ethic Code
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr Philip Young Bellevue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]