B.C. doctor’s class action lawsuit against RateMDs.com certified by Supreme Court
Posted May 8, 2024 4:19 pm.
The B.C. Supreme Court has certified a class action lawsuit brought by a doctor against RateMDs.com — arguing the reviews posted to its website violate provincial privacy legislation.
Dr. Ramona Bleuler brought the suit on behalf of doctors in B.C., Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba. She says that RateMDs.com and its parent companies Vertical Scope Holdings Inc. and Vertical Scope Inc. post information about physicians without their consent, refuse to take the reviews down, and use them for profit.
Dr. Bleuler also argues the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. restricts health professionals from using comparative advertising and places restrictions on the use of patient testimonials because the information isn’t a reliable indicator of how skilled a physician is. She claims that the reviews are “unverified”, and that the website is used for “commercial purposes”.
The crux of Dr. Bleuler’s case is that the information is used commercially, which is prohibited under the Privacy Act.
RateMDs.com and Vertical Scope argue that health professionals don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The company also said Dr. Bleuler is “simply attempting to shoehorn a privacy claim to stifle warranted criticism with respect to how she practices medicine”.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Thomas wrote that Dr. Bleuler does have a viable claim and is not “bound to fail” a standard that all class action lawsuits must pass before they can be heard in court.
Justice Thomas declined to certify the class action for physicians in Quebec, saying the claims don’t meet the standard under Quebec law.
“I have reviewed the proposed litigation plan. In my view, subject to my comments on the claims under Quebec law, it is an adequate plan for the proceedings that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding,” Thomas wrote.
The court hasn’t ruled on the merits of the claim and none of the allegations have been proven.
