October 21, 2003
Robert M. Goldwyn, M.D.
1101 Beacon Street - Suite 6E
Brookline, Massachusetts 02446
Dear Dr. Goldwyn:
I recently received a copy of an editorial published in the July 2003 issue of Journal of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery titled "I Am an Expert for Anything You Want" by Barry Zide, M.D. The article was accompanied by this personal note: "Lucille - Thought you would be interested in seeing the comments made about you."
The following paragraph was highlighted:
"What about what recently happened to one of our most esteemed colleagues? The surgeon was supervising fine residents in a cosmetic procedure, which went well. Little did they know that the patient had a huge body-image disorder. Postoperatively, the patient took her preoperative pictures, put them next to her "morphed" postoperative ghoulish pictures, and published them on the Internet. The doctor had to get a lawyer to obtain an injunction to stop her, but he lost business, money, and stature in the interim. Of course, the patient had to pay nothing."
The individual who sent this editorial did not ask if these comments were in reference to me; she knew. My identity was evident without the use of my name. As editor of this prestigious journal, I wish to inform you that Dr. Zide's comments are libelous. I demand that you publish an apology and retraction of these statements in the next issue of JPRS to go to print.
The following evidence proves the libelous nature of Dr. Zide's statements:
1. Letter from Richard Maclone, professional photographer, documents his examination of original negatives, prints and Internet images, revealing no evidence of digital manipulation or "morphing". (exhibit 1)
2. Statement by Karen E. Crosby, my former landlady, verifies herself as photographer of the pictures in question and attests to the fact that the photographs were accurate representations of my true appearance at the time they were taken. (Exhibit 1)
3. Copy of court order obtained by Joel J. Feldman, M.D. et. al. and Massachusetts General Hospital which prohibits me from publishing misleading photographs of my face and neck on the Internet and elsewhere. My photographs were not misleading and were never removed from the Internet. I assume Dr. Feldman and his attorneys are aware that I refused to remove these accurate and informative photographs, yet they have not challenged my ongoing publication of these pictures. I have included copies of the Internet photos. (exhibit 2)
4. In April 2000, I sent the same collection of photographs to Dr. Zide for his review and opinion regarding my surgical outcome. As his e-mail responses show, he never mentioned any suspicion of "morphing" of the same photographs which he calls "ghoulish" in his editorial. I find his use of such a term interesting, as I was repeatedly told by doctors at MGH that my results were "better than average". In light of the documented authenticity of my photographs, I find such diverse opinions regarding my post surgical appearance incredulous. (exhibit 3)
5. Regarding Dr. Zide's unsubstantiated comment of my having a "huge body image disorder", I have enclosed fee quotes from six board certified surgeons; (five certified by ABPS and one by AAFPRS). I consulted these doctors about surgical revision of my poor results from operations at MGH Residents' Plastic Surgery Clinic. All of these doctors were aware of my surgical history and willing to operate on me, as their fee quotations prove. Is it possible for all six experienced surgeons, whom I assume are aware of the incidence of BDD in patients seeking revision surgery, would have unanimously overlooked signs of "a huge body-image disorder"? Would they all agree to operate on a patient they thought might be suffering from such a disorder? Or would they have offered a surgical correction for what they observed was clearly a poor surgical result? Please note the dates of these proposed procedures, some as early as May and June and October 1998, hardly enough time for signs of aging to manifest after a facelift performed in November 1997. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these doctors found the poor quality of my results justification for revision surgery in less than one year. (exhibit 4)
6. E-mail was recently sent to Dr. Zide regarding his editorial, asking if his comments regarding the woman who posted her photos on the Internet and was sued by one of his "esteemed colleagues" referred to the Feldman v. Iacovelli case. He responded that the article was meant for surgeons only, that he purposely did not use names, but would discuss the involved parties only with people he trusted. As my receipt of this article proves, he did not have to use names in order for my identity to be known. (exhibit 5)
7. Dr. Feldman's lawsuit and the details of the case were widely disseminated in the media. The story was picked up by AP and literally appeared throughout the world. A simple Google search of "surgeon sues patient" generates a long list of links in which my name appears along with Dr. Feldman's. (Exhibit 6).
An act of libel does not require the individual's name be spelled out if their identity is recognizable. Dr. Zide and JPRS have acted in a negligent and irresponsible manner through malicious publication of false and damaging misinformation about me. Perhaps Dr. Zide or you, as editor, should have checked with the Court on the status of Dr. Feldman's complaint before carelessly publishing libelous statements. Medical journals do not become outdated, but are permanent sources of reference for all physicians; therefore the damage to my credibility must be amended in JPRS to my satisfaction. In his editorial, Dr. Zide implies that readers, assumedly plastic surgeons, are aware of "what happened" to their "esteemed colleague". Undoubtedly, that awareness is directly due to the extensive media coverage of Dr. Feldman's lawsuit against me. It is reasonable to assume that most plastic surgeons would recognize my name if it were to appear in their appointment schedule.
Continued...
<FONT'>
