濮阳东方医院看男科非常专业(濮阳东方妇科靠谱吗) (今日更新中)

A Wilson County, Tennessee, woman is facing a lawsuit after she posted a negative review on Yelp about a middle Tennessee doctor in November. Kelly Beavers is accused of defamation and libel, and false light for a post she made about Dr. Kaveer Nandigam of Nandigam Neurology in Murfreesboro. Her Yelp review, which remained on the website three weeks after she originally posted it, said, "This "Dr's" behavior today was totally unprofessional and unethical to put it mildly. I will be reporting him to the State of TN Medical Review Board and be filing a formal complaint. How this guy is in business is beyond me. Since when did they start allowing Doctors, to throw a complete temper tantrum in front of Patients and slam things when they get upset? He does not belong in the medical field at all." On November 27, the attorney for Nandigam Neurology filed a ,000 lawsuit against Beavers and her friend's son who posted a negative review on Google as well and has since been accused of conspiracy. Beavers said he wrote the review after he overheard her conversation. The lawsuit said the review "contained false, disparaging, and misleading statements." The lawsuit also suggested that the second defendant "was specifically recruited" by Beavers to post false and misleading statements. The plaintiff is also demanding Beavers to remove the post and for the court to issue an injunction to prohibit any further statements against Nandigam Neurology. As of this week, Nandigram Neurology only has Beavers' review and another post that gave the business five stars. Meanwhile, the company has 4.3 out 5 stars from the 21 reviews on Google. "Just in shock, I can't believe it," Beavers said. "They just don't want any negative reviews and they don't want people to talk about or give a bad review." Beavers said she has no regrets leaving the review on Yelp despite the legal action against her. She claimed she posted the review after what she called a disrespectful and shocking experience. After being referred to Nandigam Neurology, Beavers brought her 67-year-old father for dizziness and memory loss, which may have been early signs of dementia. There have been prior interactions with the staff but never with the doctor until the last visit. Beavers says the interaction seemed fine at first, but that said the doctor then threw a temper tantrum and slammed his clipboard when he realized she was recording the appointment on her cell phone, which is something she has done with other doctor visits. "Sometimes we all have things we forget, so that's why I record every doctor's visit. I want to make sure that I'm doing everything right," she explained. "He literally snapped and demanded my phone." Since Tennessee is a one-party consent state, she could record on her phone without the need for permission. Nevertheless, she claims she deleted the recording after he demanded her to. Later that day, an office employee called her to get her version of the story and deemed it was likely a miscommunication. The employee said phones were not allowed in the office, and the situation could have been mitigated if there was a prior notice to record. Beavers believed she should have been taken aside to address any concerns. Ken Paulson of the Free Speech Center, a nonpartisan educational institution that teaches how the First Amendment works in society, said there always needs to be a conscious effort to differentiate between stating an opinion or fact on platforms like Yelp. Words like unethical, dishonest or lying have the potential to damage a reputation or business if believed widely. "Don't state things you cannot back up. It's okay to say you didn't like this pizza or the anchovies were terrible because that's opinion, but you can't say they can't make this pizza without washing their hands. It's a difference in expressing an opinion and damaging a business or person," Paulson said. In reality, lawsuits like what Beavers is facing could be disputed in court and avoid the judicial process under the newly enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act otherwise known as an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation. The act hopes to prevent filing lawsuits as a form of intimidation and protect First Amendment rights, and has slowed down what was a common type of lawsuit in the past. "It allows you when you're sued to go to a judge and say, 'This is nonsense, they're just angry, I didn't cause any damage, will you dismiss this?'" Paulson explained. "They have to prove in the long run that you damaged them and spoke untruths." A judge is there to weed out cases that have no merit but if it is not dismissed, will still have to go through the judicial process. Speech Defense and Anti-SLAPP Lawyer Daniel Horwitz expressed his approval for the legislation when it was passed. He said an overwhelming majority of defamation and other speech-based lawsuits are not filed because a person has suffered an actual legal injury. Horwitz claims the purpose is to punish people for lawfully exercising their right to speak freely about a topic that the suing plaintiff wants to censor. “Tennessee’s new anti-SLAPP statute was specifically designed to punish abusive litigants who file baseless claims against people for exercising their First Amendment rights. The Yelp review is not even conceivably tortious, and the defendants should not give in to a bogus lawsuit like this one. Instead, they should fight back, get the plaintiff sanctioned, and make the plaintiff pay their attorney’s fees under the newly enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act," Horwitz said in a statement to NewsChannel 5.Beavers said she plans to a hire a lawyer and fight the lawsuit. Meanwhile, a request for comment for Nandigam Neurology has been left. 5817

An FDA advisory committee is backing a treatment meant to help people with peanut allergies. It still hasn't been federally approved but researchers are hopeful about it because it has the potential to help more than 1 million kids and teens who suffer from peanut allergies. The treatment comes in the form of a capsule. The drug is called Palforzia. It's not meant to be a total cure but rather a treatment that can help children build up a tolerance and reduce their allergic reaction. One teen that’s been part of the testing started off the trial with just three milligrams of a peanut — that's equivalent to just one one-hundredth of a peanut! Nina Nichols didn't have a reaction until she consumed 300 milligrams. She is in a controlled environment where doctors can jump in and help her when needed. Researchers will increase her dosage to build up tolerance every two weeks. “I never thought that I could … tolerate the equivalent of one peanut,” Nichols said. “That's just crazy to me because I started off reacting to one one-fiftieth of a peanut. You can't even cut that up yourself.” Nichols will be part of a food challenge in December where doctors give her up to 2,000 milligrams of peanuts. If she passes that round, she'll move on to real foods to see how she reacts to different elements of a peanut. Allergy expert Tonya A. Winders says the decision is monumental because there have been no FDA approved treatments for peanut allergies before. However, she does warn it may not be for everyone. “Is it truly that they want to avoid those accidental exposures of peanut? Then this might be the right solution for them,” said Nichols, CEO of the 1678

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. – The Palm Springs, California, real estate market is thriving, with many properties receiving multiple offers just a few days after being listed. “It’s amazing how fast the prices have escalated,” said Kevin Stern, a real estate broker with Town Real Estate. Stern has been selling real estate in the Coachella Valley for years and calls Palm Springs a very unique market. “It draws the LGBTQ community so greatly,” said Stern. “I would say the average is age group that is buying right now is between the ages of 45 and 60.” Combine that with median home price of nearly 0,000 and there are a lot of retirees spending a lot of money in this desert resort city. And now a pair of casino developers are gambling on building and bringing something new to the desert. “This is nine acres of undeveloped property that will be the site of Living Out,” said developer Paul Alanis who along with his business partner Loren Ostrow are building Living Out Palm Springs – an active retirement community designed for the LGBTQ community. “It will be first class in every respect,” Alanis said. “The level of amenities and the level of an access to a vibrant LGBTQ community here in Palm Springs – those are the two features that are most different than others.” Those features, however, are going to cost you. A 13,000 square foot, one-bed, one and a half bath starts at 9,000. “It’s clearly going to be worth it because it's going to be a luxury type of facility,” Alanis said. “We’re not skimping on anything when it comes to creating a quality of life.” Who would buy a property like this for this price? Well, it depends on who you ask. “Palm Springs is already a retirement community for LGBTQ’s,” Logan Whalen said. While Whalen isn’t at the retirement age yet and he doesn’t plan on moving to a LGBTQ community when he turns 55, he does think it’s a good option. “I think the more people that feel welcome here, the happier all of us are going to be in retirement,” he said. Several city leaders also support this project. “People use to say Palm Springs is a place for the newlyweds and the nearly dead,” joked Palm Springs Mayor Robert Moon. Moon leads the country's first all-LGBTQ city council. And with the number of LGBTQ Americans over the age of 50 expected to double in the next 10 years – he believes there is a big need for this kind of retirement community.“A lot of people find once you come here you can’t forget it,” he said. “This is a wonderful place to visit but it’s also a great place to retire.” 2556

A Florida judge has denied a request for a temporary injunction to block the Palm Beach County mask mandate.Attorneys for a group of Palm Beach County residents filed a lawsuit claiming that the county's emergency order requiring masks in public places to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus was unconstitutional.Judge John Kastrenakes issued his ruling Monday morning."The right to be 'free from governmental intrusion' does not automatically or completely shield an individual's conduct from regulation," Kastrenakes wrote in his 13-page order. "More to the point, constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not absolve a cititzen from the real-world consequences of their individual choices, or otherwise allow them to wholly shirk their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole. This is particularly true when one's individual choices can result in drastic, costly and sometimes deadly consequences to others."Kastrenakes went on to say that there is no "constitutional or protected right to infect others."Commissioners voted unanimously last month to approve the mask mandate, despite objections from an impassioned group of residents who spoke against such an ordinance.County Administrator Verdenia Baker last week extended the order for an additional 30 days. It now remains in effect until at least Aug. 23.Mayor Dave Kerner said Friday that the county is in the process of mailing about 3 million masks to residents."As this community tries desperately to navigate the tumultuous seas presented by COVID-19, it is reasonable and logical that our elected officials are throwing the citizens of Palm Beach County a lifeline in an attempt to ameliorate the spread of this deadly, unbridled and widespread disease," Kastrenakes concluded. "Based on the evidence, this court will not second guess the manner in which a co-equal branch of government sought to discharge its sacred duty to protect the general public."A statement from the Florida Civil Rights Coalition, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, said Kastrenakes "unsurprisingly" denied the motion, "paving the way for continued government tyranny under the guise of disease prevention in Palm Beach County."Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued during a hearing last week that the mask mandate infringes upon their clients' constitutional rights.In their statement, attorneys claim the ruling "disregards fundamental rights like freedom of speech and the right to medical self-determination protected by the Florida Constitution."The Florida Civil Rights Coalition plans to appeal the ruling. WPTV's Peter Burke was first to report this story. 2701

On Wednesday morning, a viral post on Twitter claimed that there were more ballots cast in Wisconsin than registered voters. As the Wisconsin Elections Commission helped to explain, this claim is not supported by data.The tweet, which has since been removed, claimed that there were only 3,129,000 registered voters in Wisconsin. However, that number is from the 2018 midterms. Wisconsinites Cast Their Votes On Election Day [PHOTOS]Get Live Results Here After the post went viral, the Wisconsin Election Commission posted a tweet discussing the number of ballots in comparison to the number of registered voters in the state.The election commission said the State of Wisconsin had 3,684,726 active registered voters as of Nov. 1. That is higher than the number of ballots counted so far, which is 3,240,275. The WEC also pointed out that Wisconsin allows for same-day voter registration, which could further increase the number of total voters. The State of Wisconsin had 3,684,726 active registered voters on November 1, 2020. Wisconsin has election day registration, which means that the VR numbers some counties report in their unofficial results are not a true indictor of registration.https://t.co/3TknriWGI2— Wisconsin Elections (@WI_Elections) November 4, 2020 Now, the viral tweet has been removed from Twitter because it "is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process." Report a typo or error // Submit a news tip This article was written by Julia Marshall for WTMJ. 1565

来源：资阳报