The Blogger Wrote Negative Reviews, Now Owes Surgeon $30,000

The Blogger Wrote Negative Reviews, Now Owes Surgeon $30,000

A blogger who wrote negative comments about a surgeon on her blog and social media accounts due to her dissatisfaction with breast implant surgery will now have to pay $30,000 to the surgeon.

In 2015, Rosa Campagna Deck underwent breast augmentation surgery by the Aesthetic Surgeon Dr. Brian Peterson.

However, three years after the operation, she expressed her dissatisfaction through her social media accounts and blog channel, citing issues with asymmetry and one breast being lower than the other.

She made negative remarks about the doctor's personal and professional performance. However, the court later dismissed these allegations, and it was found that she had presented the facts incorrectly.

The incident investigation revealed the following:

Two Implants of Different Sizes

"When Campagna Deck first visited Peterson for a breast augmentation consultation, the surgeon noted during the physical examination that the defendant had a deformity in her breast wall known as pectus excavatum, resulting in the front of her chest being concave.

The surgeon explained this to the patient and warned her that it could complicate the surgery.

As noted in the patient records by Weatherhill, he advised her to choose two implants of different sizes to correct this deformity. However, Campagna Deck preferred to use two implants of the same size.

Campagna Deck claims that Peterson never warned her about the complexity of her chest. Distressed by the results, she repeatedly contacted the clinic, complaining that her left breast was higher than the right.

She also complained about a bruise that Peterson had described as a normal side effect of the procedure. The surgeon did not show concern about this bruise and told Campagna Deck that the implant had not yet fully settled, which was normal."

After both sides were heard, and necessary research and investigations were conducted, Judge Gordon Weather hill's written statement in the verdict is as follows:

Right or Wrong

"Online review platforms are not an open space for unverified statements and saying whatever one pleases. In defamation cases, the truth is the ultimate defense.

We have concluded that most of Campagna Deck's statements are incorrect. Furthermore, the reviews were largely opinion-based. While this might fall within the scope of fair commentary, it must be based on facts.

The defendant's explanation about some background facts that make up her posts led me to conclude that they misrepresented the facts."

Now, besides the amount Campagna Deck has to pay, she also needs to remove her comments.