A scathing root canal review belonged to a dentist who shares my exact name
This account was submitted by a healthcare provider and de-identified before publication. Details that could identify a patient or practice have been removed, and it is shared with the provider’s consent.
A blistering Yelp review about a root canal appeared under my name. It described unbearable pain and a dentist who allegedly kept working despite the patient's protests. The office it named was in a different city from mine. There is another Dr. Grace Sullivan practicing endodontics a few hours away. The reviewer had apparently searched the name and picked the first listing, which was mine. The procedure described, a complex molar retreatment, is not even something I routinely perform. The details pointed unmistakably to the other practice.
I am a general dentist, and the review described specialized endodontic retreatment I refer out. The office, the city, and the procedure all belonged to the other Dr. Sullivan. This was a textbook case of mistaken identity born from a shared name. I could not publicly say "that was a different dentist and a different patient," because the second half of that sentence discloses protected information. HIPAA does not care that the confusion originated with the reviewer. Even a well-meaning redirect implies I have knowledge of who my patients are and are not. So I was left unable to correct an error that was never mine to begin with.
Patients rarely notice that two dentists can share a name in the same region. The review dragged down my rating and cost me bookings I could measure. One patient told my front desk she had almost not come in because of it. The emotional toll of being blamed for a stranger's pain was heavy. I felt helpless watching my reputation absorb someone else's review. My revenue dipped enough that I noticed it in a slow season. It was a strange grief, mourning a reputation harmed by coincidence.
I reported the review to Yelp and explained the shared-name confusion in detail. Yelp replied that the review appeared to be a genuine user experience. I appealed with evidence that the described office was in another city. The review was eventually filtered but not fully removed. I consulted an attorney who agreed the situation was maddening but legally delicate. Her counsel was to avoid any public statement referencing the patient. I worked the platform channels and waited, which is all I safely could do.