The Complainant challenged the truthfulness of 10 specific Statements posted on www.ripoffreport.com by the Author of Report #887156. The Author did not respond to the Complaint filed by Complainant in the time allowed and therefore is not participating in this Arbitration.
In accordance with the Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”), the Arbitrator was asked to decide whether each of the 10 challenged Statements is an opinion or a Statement of fact. If, and only if, the Statement is determined to be a Statement of fact, the Arbitrator will then go further and decide if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the statement is true or not.
Each Statement challenged by the Complainant has been considered, together with any Witness Statements and/or Documents provided by the Complainant for the determination of the truth or falsity of the Statement. The Author did not, in accordance with the Program Rules, properly submit a response to the Complaint.
In this case, the Arbitrator has only the evidence submitted by the Complainant to consider. The evidence submitted included: Ripoff Report #887156; 3 sets of tooth x-rays; a thank you letter to the Complainant for the referral; an additional Ripoff Report; an Arbitration Award; and a determination by the Dental Board of California that the Complainant did not violate the Dental Practice Act.
The Arbitrator was further asked to decide whether the preponderance of the evidence submitted to establish the identity of the Author of Ripoff Report #887156, shown as “LT.” Complainant essentially believes the Author who posted Ripoff Report #887156 is a competitor and posted the Report in retaliation as retribution for testimony given in a trial. The Arbitrator found it more likely than not, given all of the evidence in this case, that the Author of Report #887156, was using his/her initials as the Author name for the Report.
The Arbitrator determined that certain statements in the challenged Report were false. Therefore, according to the VIP Arbitration Rules, those statements have been redacted.
David Eggleston, DDS Reviews
The Complainant challenged the truthfulness of 10 specific Statements posted on www.ripoffreport.com by the Author of Report #887156. The Author did not respond to the Complaint filed by Complainant in the time allowed and therefore is not participating in this Arbitration.
In accordance with the Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”), the Arbitrator was asked to decide whether each of the 10 challenged Statements is an opinion or a Statement of fact. If, and only if, the Statement is determined to be a Statement of fact, the Arbitrator will then go further and decide if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the statement is true or not.
Each Statement challenged by the Complainant has been considered, together with any Witness Statements and/or Documents provided by the Complainant for the determination of the truth or falsity of the Statement. The Author did not, in accordance with the Program Rules, properly submit a response to the Complaint.
In this case, the Arbitrator has only the evidence submitted by the Complainant to consider. The evidence submitted included: Ripoff Report #887156; 3 sets of tooth x-rays; a thank you letter to the Complainant for the referral; an additional Ripoff Report; an Arbitration Award; and a determination by the Dental Board of California that the Complainant did not violate the Dental Practice Act.
The Arbitrator was further asked to decide whether the preponderance of the evidence submitted to establish the identity of the Author of Ripoff Report #887156, shown as “LT.” Complainant essentially believes the Author who posted Ripoff Report #887156 is a competitor and posted the Report in retaliation as retribution for testimony given in a trial. The Arbitrator found it more likely than not, given all of the evidence in this case, that the Author of Report #887156, was using his/her initials as the Author name for the Report.
The Arbitrator determined that certain statements in the challenged Report were false. Therefore, according to the VIP Arbitration Rules, those statements have been redacted.