{"id":68076,"date":"2019-06-04T20:13:35","date_gmt":"2019-06-04T18:13:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=68076"},"modified":"2024-10-22T17:09:08","modified_gmt":"2024-10-22T15:09:08","slug":"lg-meiningen-jameda-rating-inadmissible-if-contact-with-practice-staff-not-proven","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/data-protection-law\/lg-meiningen-jameda-rating-inadmissible-if-contact-with-practice-staff-not-proven\/","title":{"rendered":"LG Meiningen: Jameda rating inadmissible if contact with practice staff not proven"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
\u00a9 lenets_tan – Fotolia.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In a recent judgment in interim injunction proceedings, the Meiningen Regional Court once again made it clear in a nutshell that the rating of a doctor on a doctor rating platform is inadmissible without proven treatment contact.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

The court thus follows the case law of the BGH (BGH, Urteil v. 1.3.2016, Az. VI ZR 34\/15<\/a>). According to the Meiningen Regional Court, this principle also applies if the alleged patient claims that he was turned away by the practice staff before treatment despite being in severe pain, but has not proven this. <\/em><\/p>\n

The doctor rating platform is also subject to review obligations that it did not fulfill in this case. Simply requesting a description of the practice and the month and year of treatment is not sufficient (LG Meiningen, Urteil v. 22.5.2019, Az. (117) 2 O 274\/19<\/a>, nicht rechtskr\u00e4ftig).<\/em><\/p>\n

Jameda review contained serious accusations<\/h2>\n

The applicant, a general practitioner in private practice, objected to a review by an alleged patient who had claimed on the doctor review portal jameda.de to have been \u201cturned away\u201d by the applicant’s staff despite being in severe pain. The applicant was given an overall rating of 6.0.<\/p>\n

Understandably, the doctor did not want to put up with this. After all, the unjustified refusal of treatment by a doctor is not only a violation of the Hippocratic oath (which is no longer mandatory in Germany, but is still important as a code of honor), but may also constitute a failure to render assistance punishable under \u00a7 323c of the German Criminal Code (StGB).<\/p>\n

The applicant therefore reported this review to Jameda as a problem. She complained that the information in the review was not true and denied that the reviewer had actually been in the practice and had been \u201cturned away\u201d by the staff despite severe pain in the kidney area. She stated that she was certain that such an incident had not occurred in her practice after detailed consultation with her practice team.<\/p>\n

Jameda had initially temporarily removed the review including the grading from the website, but then republished the review without grades, as it considered the truthfulness of the review to be demonstrated by a brief description of the practice and the mention of the month and year of treatment of the reviewer.<\/p>\n

\n