A review trashing cosmetic bonding belonged to a same-named dentist downtown

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.

What was posted

A one-star Google review criticized cosmetic bonding that supposedly chipped within a week. It described a dentist who dismissed the patient's concerns about the color. The office named was a downtown cosmetic studio, not my suburban practice. The dentist shared my last name but had a different first initial. There is indeed another Dr. Marchetti doing cosmetic work in the city. The reviewer had landed on my profile through a name search. The described studio and its services did not match my office.

What actually happened

My practice does cosmetic bonding, but the specific case described did not happen here. The downtown studio in the review is a separate business run by a different Dr. Marchetti. This was mistaken identity, plain and simple, driven by a shared surname. I could not publicly explain the mix-up, because saying the patient belonged elsewhere is a protected disclosure. HIPAA does not distinguish between correcting a lie and correcting an honest error. Confirming that someone was not my patient is legally off-limits. So the misplaced review stayed on my profile, uncorrected by me.

Impact

Cosmetic patients compare offices carefully and weigh every review. A bonding complaint on my profile steered some prospective patients elsewhere. My new-patient cosmetic consultations slowed for a couple of months. I felt the anxiety of being judged for another dentist's outcome. The unfairness of losing patients to a coincidence of names gnawed at me. My front desk fielded questions about bonding quality that I wished I could answer directly. It is a peculiar helplessness to be blamed for a stranger's work.

Steps taken

I reported the review to Google, explaining the same-name confusion and the mismatched studio. The first report was closed with no action. I provided the downtown office's details and the differing first initial. Google moved the review off my profile after a second submission. I consulted an attorney to confirm I had no safe public option. She agreed that any clarification risked a HIPAA violation. I relied on the reporting process and my patience, as frustrating as that was.

Reported impact on this provider

Anxiety StressDeclined New PatientsReputation Damage

Three others reported Reputation Damage

See all 176 →

He Refused the ER—and His Family Believed We Sent Him Home

Pt with chief concern of urinary retention. He had obvious evidence of head trauma on exam (abrasions and a black eye if I recall…

Read what happened →

She Requested an Unnecessary Exam. I Couldn’t Explain Why I Refused.

The patient requested an exam that was not appropriate for her age. I declined to perform the exam she requested.

Read what happened →

False Reviews, Legal Threats, and Thoughts of Early Retirement

The post was not accurate. The patient presented with severe, rapidly progressing dental disease and repeatedly delayed or declined…

Read what happened →

Add your voice to the record

Behind every story is a career that deserved better.

If you have been affected, adding your story to the record is one of the most important contributions you can make to this campaign. Legislators read these accounts.

Every submission is de-identified before publication. Your privacy — and your patients’ — is protected.