SUBMIT A COMPLAINT

Dr Barry EppleySurgery gone wrong

1
J Review updated:

I decided to let Dr. Eppley operate on me in 2008. This was after much research and getting up the nerve to go through with it (oh and saving up the money). I thought he was great after our first and second consultation. I won't bore you with the gory details of the blotched surgery, but what I will say is that I left worst off than I came in. The aesthetic outcome missed the mark; not even close to what I requested/expected or was promised. In an attempt to correct a blotched cosmetic job, he caused physical injury and left me with permanent scar tissue. So clearly I went from bad to worst, all the while trying to hang in there and continue to trust my surgeon. Furthermore, there was blatant denial of wrong doing even with physical evidence that something went drastically wrong during surgery. I was made to feel like the anomaly, which according to the complaint board and other reviews, I am one of many walking wounded. When I complained about the lack of follow up care I received after the complication, I was advised that it was my responsibility to schedule follow up appointments. I agree; under NORMAL circumstances. Protocol changes when something has gone wrong. At that point, I expected Dr. Eppley to be proactive in tracking my progress, checking in periodically and not waiting to hear from me. Again, it's the lack of accountability and empathy that bothers you after you've entrusted your health and well being to someone that seemingly could care less. That is, of course, unless you're one of the lucky ones that got what they paid for. I didn't - Just My Luck

Responses

  • D
      Oct 26, 2009

    How can this guy still be in business after the number of patients he has injured?

    What can you expect from a doctor who stoops to suing a patient in an attempt to prevent her from telling the truth about his incompetence?

    Dr. Barry Eppley should not be allowed to practice medicine. He belongs in jail.

    +13 Votes
  • D
      Mar 31, 2010

    Barry Eppley is suing Lucille Iacovelli for her internet comments about him. But he is doing it in an insidious and underhanded manner.

    For one: In his lawsuit, he defines anyone who would comment on his behavior as "in concert" with Ms. Iacovelli and the law suit is aimed at denying anyone who would critique him as being "in concert" with Lucille. So, it's a suit in which he is not just trying to stop HER from commenting about him but also trying to stop ANYONE from critiquing him. Meanwhile he is plastering the internet with self promotion material.

    For two: In his restraining order where he wants ALL of her material taken down from the net from ALL websites housing it, he is patently claiming that all of it is 'liable' and 'defamatory'. He is claiming this despite her possible ability to prove that much of it is true. The insidious part is that it is not really a restraining order aimed at having her take down ONLY the defamatory parts (where she refers to him as a "butcher" or "murderer") but it's one of ALSO insisting she take down her contentions of injury that very well could be true before she even has a chance to prove they are true. In essence the restraining order pre defines her as "guilty" BEFORE having that determined after a trial. Although some of her content could be considered libel, not all of it is.

    For three: He's able to pull that off because the Judge; Sarah Parker Evans is on the board of directors of his profit based medical spa establishment. Conflict of interest for "justice" for Lucille. But of course, a situation where the judge would tend to be sympathetic with him. She even allows him to be his own "expert witness".

    For four and this is the clincher:

    He is doing all this because he is afraid that Lucille's suicide or impending suicide in which she has made arrangements for an AUTOPSY, which very well could prove many of Lucille's contentions that her problems post surgery were due to him, will harm his reputation. Even if she did not commit suicide, his law suit attempts to suppress, thwart, and preclude discussion of any autopsy findings as LINKED to her contentions about Eppley's surgical wrong doing. He's suing her because he's afraid that when she dies, her autopsy report will vindicate her for telling the truth about his surgical ineptitude and the publicity will harm him. So, he's more concerned with much of her content about him being true, being proved true via an autopsy and is going after defamation now as to prevent any further discussion or linkage to his possible wrong doing if her autopsy finds that.

    In fact, in his law suit, he states his main concern is that her death (suicide) would be made public and therefore linked to him. In his law suit, he even demands that people don't discuss her suicide.

    I don't think this doctor should be demanding from any possible party out there on the internet (that is NOT Lucille herself) to refrain from discussing her suicide or even death outside of that.

    So this law suit is doing more than just having Lucille take down the parts of her content that are clearly defamatory (e/g calling him a "butcher"). It requires her to take down all the supporting evidence and documentation she has about his surgical actions and defines anyone as wishing to discuss it as "in concert" with her as to also preclude them from critiquing him and all this is before a court of law determines even the merit of his complaint along with her defence! Furthermore, this is all aimed at precluding any future discussion (from anybody), in the event of her death and in the event an autopsy following could show a link between his surgery and her complaints.

    +10 Votes
  • J
      Apr 01, 2010

    My research obviously was not thorough enough. I really take issue with the online referral services who sung Dr. Eppley's praises and stated there was no action against his license. I later found that he PAID to be a part of the service and that there was no high level of scrutiny to be in their database as they touted. Interestingly, they dropped him about three months later due to NON PAYMENT! REALLY? the purpose of a doctor referral service is to help screen for the public/ patient. This can't be the case if anyone can pay their way in. What about that TOP DOCTOR award that's in his office? To the layman person it would appear that he has many accolades. Was that too based on financial contribution to some foundation? How does one get that award if there are so many patient complaints? This is where the public is being mislead and deceived. There needs to be a better way to screen doctors and scrutinize them to find the ones that really have the expertise and skill they claim to have (not just able to talk the talk and have a good bedside manner) A patient shouldn't have to find out the hard way- trial and error. Of course, the referral service doesn't want any parts of the complaint even though they clearly referred me and HIGHLY RECOMMENDED him.

    +8 Votes
  • D
      Apr 02, 2010

    Barry Eppley has to bombard the net with his blogs that come up in Google and his U-tube self adverts to attract any patients and of course, as you have noticed; paying a "referral service" to refer him. His blogs aren't even his own insights. He peruses the net looking for insights and observations of others, collects them and presents them as if he's the insightful one. He's a dingbat.

    There's one patient who used to go by name of 'lisa' where he really did a number trying to chisel her jaw and also put in some terrible looking cheek implants. She had to get his stuff revised. However, she has not really pursued him or kept on his tail as Lucille was doing.

    Presently, there is little now to keep him in check since he has had Lucille remove any of her prior mention of him. She's not allowed to tell other patients that he was the one who did her revision surgery and from it, gave her serious breathing problems. So, he put an end to the main patient complaining about him and made her take down any mention of him.

    She's been complaining about him for over 7 years with vivid photos, videos and descriptions of what he did to her. But it was only recently he took legal action. He found a message on his blog to the effect that Lucille was going to commit suicide and that after she did it, she had both a writer and autopsy doctor who would report the findings of the autopsy. (Lucille wishes to prove that his surgery damaged her greatly, not just aesthetically but functionally as to inhibit her ability to breath and in a very severe way.). Although Lucille denies lodging a suicide entry to him, (She claims he lodged it himself as a scheme to lock her up and prevent her from writing about him any further), Eppley called the Cape Cod police and had her locked up in a psychiatric ward. With that, he made a case to the court (well his lawyers did) that she was planning a suicide for the purpose of ruining his reputation. Ultimately, he realizes that if she dies (even from non -suicide), she's got an autopsy doc and writer on call to release information that she feels would vindicate her contentions that Eppley did something terrible to her during his surgery that severely affected her ability to breath. Although she also has contentions with other doctors such as the ones who performed the surgery she ended up having Eppley revise and the ones who told her they could not find anything wrong with her, (she feels they are all hiding or denying a medical mistake) and this won't be the first time she was sued for defamation, IF they do do an autopsy, (especially if she dies from inability to breath!), then there would be a good chance Eppley's surgery would be linked to that. Basically, it's her dying wish to have him linked to her death.

    Eppley knows that and the purpose of his lawsuit is to preempt possible future discussion of any autopsy findings with his surgery. That's the reason his law suit is one where he wants all mention and linkage to him removed. He does not want his surgery linked to her death or even mentioned and he wishes to remove all cross references to it now via his law suit as his law suit precludes the person writing a book about her from mentioning any of this.

    Eppley committed a type of surgical assault to Lucille by sewing her neck and jaw muscles near the base of her tongue in such a way that she can't breath while holding her head up. She has to use self rigged devices to take the pulling component of his surgery away from her tongue base so she can swallow and breath. His surgery has rendered her dysfunctional as she has to struggle with holding up devices to her neck (that dig into her flesh) just to breath.

    Thousands and thousands of viewers have seen this via her documentation on You-Tube and also on her website. However Eppley had her remove all the references to it via the judge affiliated with his business and now people can't read about what he did. Although many patients have suffered under his hands, tons of them must have been spared from him when Lucille was able to write about her personal experience with him. Now with no one to keep him in check, he's all over the place with his u-tubes and self promotion videos and blogs. Furthermore, he seeks to stop all critique of him by defining anyone and everyone disgusted with him as "in concert with" Lucille. It's certainly possible to be disgusted with him and not be in "concert with Lucille" and it's certainly possible to be sympathetic to Lucille and still not be "in concert with" Lucille. Yet, he seeks to define anyone and everyone who has heard Lucille's story as being "in concert with her" IF they write about how disgusted they are with him. ###.

    Eppley: You have loads of unhappy patients and you have no right to define them as "in concert" with Lucille if any of your other unhappy patients are sympathetic to her and repeat what you forbid Lucille to repeat. May all your unhappy patients repeat and disseminate everything you want to GAG Lucille from saying. Just because you do have patients who find you reprehensible and would sympathize with another unhappy patient of yours does not pre-define them as "in concert" with Lucille. The fact that you would define it that way in your law suit is what makes you reprehensible.

    BOYCOTT BARRY EPPLEY!!

    +8 Votes
  • J
      Apr 05, 2010

    What Dita said about Dr. Eppley is the same with Dr. Richard A. weiss. Dr. richard Alan weiss bombarded the internet with lots of advertisement and also he have too many youtube videos. People please do not believe the positive reviews about doctors cuz most of it is placed there by the doctor himself. It is only on this website you can find out the truth!!!

    People just stop goig to Dr. Barry Eppley. He is another one of those evil doctors that mutilates people's face without any regrets or sympathy toward how people feel. Please add the name of Dr. Richard Alan Weiss out in Newport Beach, CA t to the list of evil doctors. These doctors don't care about their patients. There are too many bad doctors and all want to be plastic surgeons. I used to trust doctors and the top part of my face is mutilated really badly. I no longer trust doctor. Dr. Richard Alan Weiss used my face to practice on without my consent. I have horrible scars all over my face.

    It is only on ripp-off reports or complaints board that we can air out the truth. Everywhere is sensored by the doctors. makemeheal, realself.com, yelp.com and youtube are there to make money with adverstisements and also realself. com, makemeheal charge doctors monthly fees to be on those sites. Doctors on those site hoping to recruit new patients and the truth cannot be told on those site. I aired out my story so many times on those websites and Dr. Richard Alan Weiss had it all removed. I know he will paid one way or another. He most likely will fry in hell for what he done to my face. I was only 27 when he used me without my consent and cut me up all over the place putting loads of noticeable scars onto my face.

    +4 Votes
  • J
      Apr 05, 2010

    Let me make it clear. I went in for revision eyelid surgery with no scars on my face, except for a very super thin hairline scar that was flat and smooth hidden inside my natural crease line and ended up with scars on my forehead, to the side of my eyes, on my eyelids, on my eyelid creases, and on my eyebrows.

    +5 Votes
  • J
      Apr 06, 2010

    I could understand exactly how you feel. Lucille you had a beautiful face before this ### Dr. Barry eat ### Eppley touched your face. You are still beautiful despite the fact that he sagged part of your face. Your inner beauty really shine. By going public with this shows what big heart you have. YOu want people not to become one of Dr. Eppley's victims. Dr. Eppley and Dr. Richard A. weiss and other evil greedy doctores will go to hell for their evil doings. He is shameless!!! I am so glad you come out and tell the world what he done to you. You & I know how it feels to be used as an experiment without consent. Once you sign doctor's consent to sugery, doctors can do all kinds of ### without really telling you. I read that many doctors aren't qualify to do comestic plastic surgeries. Any doctors can perform plastic surgeries in most states without having the proper training. If the experiment went well, then the doctors will use your pictures on their websites. If it is botched, it is hushed up. I am so glad that is the internet and website like ripp off report so we can air the dirty secrets of doctors.

    Dr. Richard Alan Weiss of Newport Beach is on realself.com all the time. Everytime I tried to post my story without his name, it gets removed by the moderator. I noticed that people can post negative things about doctors as long as they aren't doctors' that paids a fee to sites like MakemeHeal.com and Realself.com. I posted my story over 10 times and they all got removed. Sometimes, they stay on for a few days, other times, it get remove right away. I guess it really depend on how busy the moderator is.

    Your right Lucille, people don't complain wihtout good reason. My face was extremely mutilated at age of 27. I get stare at all the time. I know most people will not ask what happen to my eyes or how come there is so much scars on the top half of my face( all around or near my eye area). Most people know it is botched eyelid surgery, but they probably cannot understand why all the scars in the sourround area. I am east asian descent born with parellell double eyelid creases and we have thick dermis layer and usually don't get wrinkles in our eyes until we are into our late 60's.

    +6 Votes
  • J
      Apr 06, 2010

    I remember seeing your video on youtube naming the mutilator, but this year I noticed it got changed to Dr. E. I plan on to put a yuotube video out on what dr. Weiss done to my face. I probably cannot used her full name. I will probably need to title it HOrrible plastic surgeries without consent Dr. W. Newport Beach, CA. I wish I can show you my my face, then you know how bad it is. In person you can see it a lot worst than in pictures. That is why I need to do a close up video on my eyelids, so people know that this is for real. I was on makemeheal and tried to warn some people about this. Some people just don't realized this is real. I have cuts, indentations, puncture marks, needle marks, zig zag scars over all the top half of my face and lumpy eyelid creases. Dr. Weiss didn't give a ### what he done to my face. He pulled the stitches super tight. He took him less than an hour to butchered me up. I remember his receptionist coming into the room like 3 times reminding him his next appointment is in.

    I been going to see plastic surgeons to see if anytihing can be done to fix some of Dr. Weiss's mess he made on my face. I just want opinions on my situations. This certified facail plastic surgeon told me what doctor weiss did to my face was consider battery. I paid for eyelid surgery and he had no business of touching anywhere else. I bet a lot of people don't know that and I didn't either. This information came too late to me. Had I known this, I could have gone to the newport beach, Ca and Dr. Richard A. Weiss arrested for battery. I paid for eyelids surgery and he should have touched my forehead and eyebrows. This last plastic surgeon told me he thinks Dr. Richard A. wiess put all the scars on my face on purpose. He said the scars are extremely excessive and noticeable. He never saw anyting like it before.


    In the 90's there were no internet to get all the infomation that is now available. Even in 1998, there weren't much information about plastic surgeries as nowadays. It is even better since ripp-off reports came to life.!!!

    +7 Votes
  • D
      Apr 07, 2010

    Eppley's blog is just rife with illustrations and content that actually come from other doctors of whom he gives absolutely no credit to as either the source of the illustrations he is using or the source of the information he's blogging about. He does this to give the appearance that he is competent in doing the the types of procedures he is blogging about. All he's doing is using the insights and findings of others and incorporating them into his blog and mind you with NO CREDIT to those he's pilfering from. His presentation on his blogs is an entire FACADE as all he has done really is to collect information on the net with no credit to those he collected it from and presenting the info as if these are his own observations or insights.

    What he does is a form of carpet bagging. He peruses the net for sources of information and also topics patients are interested in. Finds a place where patients collect sharing information, then finds out more about which doctors they are most interested in, PILFERS copy right material from the doctors such as illustrations and photos, reads up on the doctor's findings, then uses KEY WORDS in his blog which are the same key words patients would use looking for some doctors and procedures. Instead of being lead to the doctors who's illustrations and insights Eppley is pilfering from to write his blog, they find Eppley's blog instead and on it, he gives the appearance he's conversant in the material he's blogging about. It's sickening. It takes advantage of patients not knowing any better because of course, very few of them are going to be able to tell that the topic Eppley is blogging on is just borrowed information from the doctors who should be given credit or reference. Especially when he is using their copyright illustrations with no credit to them and especially when he is just PARROTING their findings with no credit to them.

    It's carpet bagging with the intent to MISLEAD patients that he is surgically adept in the topics he blogs about. Eppley isn't even an ASAPS member. I'd say a lot of his CME 'credits' is little more than pilfering content from other sources; something he does without giving the sources credit and he does it to bolster his own reputation.

    What ever 'good reputation' he has on the net, especially if it's from his BLOGS where he carpet bags other doctors 'stuff' has got to be a big FACADE.

    +6 Votes
  • D
      Apr 08, 2010

    Wonder what he is implanting in patients without informed consent. The FDA letter crossed out the part where it would tell you which implanted device he was putting in without the patient's consent. Even on that operative report I read where he lists on it the anesthesiologist, he did not know which anesthesiologist was present as the anesthesiologist who he said was there (on Lucille's surgery) denied (on another document letter) that he was her anesthesiologist. He just strikes me a sloppy or forgetful dingbat.

    Whether or not he, himself writes those blog articles, they still constitute a ruse in the sense it's not his mind behind the observations, findings and the collection of information. He's just about plastered the net with a large number of compilations from other sources that he regurgitates without credit. In that way, the gullible will attribute more competence to him than he probably has. In a professional peer reviewed article he could not pull that crap. He would need to foot note each source in a bibliography.

    The court documents written by his lawyers play up that he has worked hard to advance his career. However, I would question the "hard work" given that a lot of is aimed at self promotion through a non peer reviewed venue and one rife with misrepresentation and or errors of omission as in failure to credit the sources of the information he obtains.

    +6 Votes
  • D
      Apr 08, 2010

    Speaking of the FDA

    Found a complaint on RateMDs.com about Eppley where the person said he was using "Lipo Dissolve" and he promised results he could not deliver.

    The FDA just sent out warning letters about doctors using Lipo Dissolve who don't substantiate their claims.
    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm207453.htm

    Eppley needs to reported to the FDA to get a similar letter as he's hyped it up to patients promising things he can't deliver and he's still offering the procedure on his website:

    "LipoDissolve therapy is also available as an alternative to liposuction surgery for very select patients..."


    Here is the patient complaint based on his verbal communication to her during a consult:

    " weni went to eppley for lipo dissolve he promised i would lose 3 inches by the end of 3 months sessions, the procedure didnot work snd he refused my mney back saying i needed surgery, i would not let him touch me!! he is arroi went to eppley for lipo dissolve he promised i would lose 3 inches by the end of 3 months sessions, the procedure didnot work snd he refused my mney back saying i needed surgery, i would not let him touch me!! he is arrogant, worthless and a down right lier, he comes off so sweet and innocent to get your money then tells you you need surgery after he already said you didnt, dont use this dr. find another one that wont rip you off, trust nme, this is the best advice you can ever get, do your home work and dont trust this dr!!! gant, worthless and a down right lier, he comes off so sweet and innocent to get your money then tells you you need surgery after he already said you didnt, dont use this dr. find another one that wont rip you off, trust nme, this is the best advice you can ever get, do your home work and dont trust this dr!!! t to eppley for lipo dissolve he promised i would lose 3 inches by the end of 3 months sessions, the procedure didnot work snd he refused my mney back saying i needed surgery, i would not let him touch me!! he is arrogant, worthless and a down right lier, he comes off so sweet and innocent to get your money then tells you you need surgery after he already said you didnt, dont use this dr. find another one that wont rip you off, trust nme, this is the best advice you can ever get, do your home work and dont trust this dr!!!"
    http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/15623/IN/Indianapolis/Eppley

    +6 Votes
  • W
      Apr 10, 2010

    It looks like YouTube is deleting Lucille's videos as fast as people are re-uploading them. These are up for now, but most were taken down as soon as people put them up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PT9k1rvH3k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk41MbkY2Rs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFMT2qryqxU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxEm_LlRuj4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xVVCYswHQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsWd-VMXoqU

    +5 Votes
  • S
      Apr 10, 2010

    I guess the only option would be for someone to put up a site called:
    "Explore Plastic Surgery Complaints about Barry Eppley"; a site that collects all the complaints out there about him in one place and then transfer her videos to that one.

    +5 Votes
  • O
      Apr 16, 2010

    Eppley gives false testimony in court


    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26482444/87


    Under oath, Eppley used his "expert" testimony to call the platysma muscle the "latissmus" muscle. He DID NOT even know the correct name of the muscle he operated on!!!. He later told the court that muscle had "no function" other than to "shape" the neck. That is a BLATENT LIE by a medical professional and well below the standard of understanding within the field. The platysma muscle is used to stretch/extend the neck and also in jaw movement. Fact of the matter is that the platysma were shortened vertically in such a way to fold it onto itself perpendicular to the direction of it's fibers, it would result in the same problems Iacovelli complains of and attribute to Eppley's surgery which is inability to extend the neck and undue pulling of the jaw down. Given he does not even get the name of the muscle he operated on correct and that he feels the muscle is "useless" and therefore expendable, I would say it was highly likely he acted in negligent disregard for it's function during the surgery he performed. He also falsely states that Feldman performed her face lift surgery prior; a surgery he was 'correcting'. False statement to the court. Feldman did not perform her face lift surgery. His statements demonstrate he is not in the capacity adequately relay the facts to the court and in fact has misinformed them to his own advantage. The misstatements of fact, especially not even knowing the correct muscle he operated on and further claiming it had no anatomical real useful function belies that he is a potentially risky doctor for patients to seek surgery from. These false statements given by him in a court of law will be shared in the 'court of public opinion' when judging him as doctor. Indeed this case is a travesty.

    +4 Votes
  • W
      Apr 20, 2010

    Check out the comments on this article:

    http://www.ibj.com/judge-fines-woman-waging-web-war-against-plastic-surgeon/PARAMS/article/15230

    +5 Votes
  • C
      Apr 20, 2010

    The court case: Eppley vs. Iacovelli is of great public interest to the plastic surgery patient population. Yet his lawyers are seeking to squelch discussion of the court case.

    One of the things Eppley's lawyers want, in addition to her stopping entirely writing about her surgery with Eppley is for her to not even write about the court case. They don't want her writer; Rich Bergeron writing about it either. It gets worse: Eppley also wants the court to issue him an order that tells Google to get reference to him (by her) out of the search engines.

    Eppley's requests for "relief" go too far. It's one thing to order her to stop writing about him. But it goes to far when they try to seep into the rights of others. For example, the Google search engines should not be importuned with giving Eppley "relief" by seeing to it that any search of his name does not also call up any of her entries anywhere which is what he wants. Fact of the matter is that he lodged a court case and the court case is called: "Eppley vs. Iacovelli". So now Eppley and Iacovelli have a linkage association and not one where he has any right to insist that Google disconnect any linkage.

    It also goes too far when Eppley's lawyers use phrases like; "in concert" with her to imply that anyone not even associated with her who writes about this is therefore "in concert" with her for writing about the court case. It's done to stop any publicity about this case.

    Basically, Eppley's lawyers are trying to seek a type of "relief" that impinges on the free speech rights of others to even write about this case if they so choose to express support for the cause and complaint of Lucille Iacovelli. The fact that he wanted the judge to draft a court order telling Google to remove any links to her stuff in any search of him is going too far. It also goes too far when he tries to forbid others from using their free speech to discuss the fact he lodged a court case and to also express support for the cause and the complaint of Lucille. The clincher here is they also put the screws to her writer; Bergeron who would be in the capacity of covering this topic to a patient audience (who would be very interested--and probably horrified) to learn about the machinations of that court case. They are forbidding the writer who has the most information about this case to write about it. Why? Because a good writer sympathetic to the cause and the complaint of Lucille would expose Eppley and his lawyers.

    Lucille Iacovelli and Rich Bergeron defied the court orders and were held in "contempt of court". But they defied them in a way that would be ADMIRABLE. You know Eppley's lawyers were saying the equivalent of:
    'Anything Lucille or Bergeron could say about Eppley is therefore a type of defamation and therefore they are not at liberty to say anything about Eppley or the court case'. Eppley's lawyers were also saying the equivalent of : ' Anything anybody else says in support of her cause and complaint with Eppley or the court will be deemed as orchestrated by her'. Indeed it was admirable for them to fight back in defiance of the PRESUMPTIONS Eppley was making. The court orders PRESUME anything she could say would be a type of defamation and they PRESUME that anything someone else would say in support of the cause and complaint of Lucille would be from a type of "abettor" orchestrated by her to say it. Who would not be in contempt of that type of presumption?

    A key problem with the case was that Lucille did not have a lawyer. The judge told her it would be a good idea for her to find a lawyer. But Lucille could not afford one. She was acting as her own lawyer (with some help from Bergeron who the judge would not represent her because he was not a lawyer) but she did not do the court rules and protocols right. Thing is if she were able to attend the court hearings she could have cross examined Eppley's testimony and maybe nailed him.

    During Eppley's testimony, he referred to the muscle he operated on; the platysma muscle as the "latissmus" muscle and then further told the court the muscle had no real "use". Then he falsely named a doctor for doing Lucille's prior face lift. (He named the wrong doctor). The court accepted that as "expert" testimony. If Lucille were in the court room, she could have nailed him good for not even knowing the right name of the muscle he operated on, challenged the falsity that it had no "use", pointed out he named the wrong doc as doing her prior face lift and undermined his "expert testimony" right there on the spot.

    Now, here's a doctor who does not even get the ANATOMY right of the muscle he altered in some way and his bumbling of that is accepted as "expert testimony" in court. The travesty is neither she nor her writer are allowed to openly criticize his bumbling testimony. Something like that indeed supports their cause and complaint which in effect is Eppley does not know what he's doing in surgery. You know, just getting the anatomy wrong and also the use of the muscle would belie he does not know what he's doing in surgery. That, in addition to his listing an anesthesiologist attending her surgery that WAS NOT EVEN THERE during it.

    +4 Votes
  • T
      Apr 21, 2010

    Yikes! This doc must be a real low life! How can a court stop people from writing about this lawsuit? If you search Dr. Barry Eppley in Google there's a story about this in Indiana Business Journal.

    I'm going to check out all these links. He wants to keep this story hidden because people would never go to him if they knew he sued a patient, especially under shady circumstances as they appear to be.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 22, 2010

    This whole saga has a lot of intrigue to it. The catalyst of it all was the suicide threat transmitted via Eppley's site on 18 March 2009. The message was that in 31 days, (marking the anniversary of Lucille's surgery with him) he would be known as a "murderer". Threat being that an autopsy had been arranged by Lucille, and also a writer, (Rich Bergeron) was at the ready to link the findings in such a way that Eppley's surgery would be found at the root of her sufferings and hence vindicate her claims attributed to him in life and lead to his ruination.

    Obviously, he did not want a public suicide on his hands which would further media attention and kill his reputation for good. But of all the nasty e-mails and web entries he's gotten from Lucille in the past 7 years, which he just let slide, wished they would go away or dealt with by paying a reputation management firm to dilute her stuff in some way, this particular suicide threat was the one that drove him to action. Here was his ticket to ride. It was like getting a free lottery ticket and a winning one at that. This suicide threat gave him the very thing he needed to grab onto as to pull forward to accelerate a speedy injunction for Lucille. In 7 years, no other thing could possibly ever been used to his advantage to 'get' Lucille and to 'get her good'. So, here came the silver lining in the cloud of Lucille storming over head and raining on his parade for 7 years.

    Although Lucille claims Eppley, crafted this "evil" scheme, (a falsified suicide threat blamed on her). Just the hint of some EVIL GENIUS being at play here would rule Eppley out. Why? A bumble brained fumble fingered doctor is just not likely to also be a "genius"; evil or not and pull something like that off.

    From the day of the suicide threat; 18 March to the day in which he lodged a complaint in court; 30 March, 12 days elapsed in which his lawyers crafted the case against her. Surprise, surprise, surprise. On the 13th day came BAD LUCK for Lucille. The 13th day was 31 March; the day Eppley reported the suicide threat to the Mass authorities. That was the day, she was taken away and locked up in a psyche ward. Although she was only locked up for 1 day, it's pretty clear here that the timing of the report to the authorities; 13 days after the suicide threat, was planned to be after the court case was lodged and also so that she would not have the time to respond to the court case. It was to their chagrin that she managed to be released after one day. Luck would have it, (luck for Eppley and team that is), she would be in the clinker longer and long enough to detain her from playing a role in any self defense.

    In terms of a "plot" to nail her, that one was a good one. Good in the sense of it being crafty enough to suspect an evil genius may have played a major role here. The suicide threat was presumed, without question to be from Lucille. The writing style along with her history of sending him nasty e-mails lead to that presumption. Although the suicide threat came via a web form in which anybody could have pretended to be Lucille and left her e-mail address along with it, that particular possibility was not entertained by the court when the suicide threat was introduced as evidence. By the time Lucille was released from the psyche clinker, it was too late for her to challenge the 'who done it' aspect of this suicide threat attributed to her. The case went through on the presumption she wrote it.

    But to contend that Eppley and his partner or his lawyers crafted the suicide letter shows a major lapse of deductive reasoning on the part of Lucille. Why? If an evil genius was at play here, it could not be Eppley as he is neither. Fumble fingered does not make him "evil" and bumble brained negates any "genius". If any suicide letter were fabricated to do Lucille in, the culprit would have had to be smart enough to pull that off with panache and without question so it would be presumed to have come from Lucille and also someone with a prior history of antagonizing Lucille and working the legal system towards antagonizing and taunting her.

    Eppley certainly demonstrated no prior history of knowing how to 'work' the legal system in such a way to torment Lucille. For 7 years, he just wanted her to 'go away' and he focused his efforts on trying to dilute her web postings. Efforts being writing a blog (or hiring a writer for such) and hiring reputation management people to help deflect the bad publicity coming his way from her web postings. If anything, Eppley was dumbfounded as how to get her and how to get her good. Yes, that's right. 7 years in which Eppley was dumbfounded as to how to thwart or stop her. Hardly the earmarks of an "evil genius". If anything, this suicide note was a GIFT to him by an evil genius.

    At this point, it's not clear what efforts were made to address Lucille's claim that she did not write the suicide letter that spear headed this court case and it does seem like her history of bombarding him with nasty e-mails and her writing style were enough for the court to presume she wrote it. Yet behind the scenes there was a person, very familiar with Lucille and with ill incentive towards Lucille to do her in.That person was her sister; Arlene Mulley.

    Shortly after Lucille's unfortunate surgical outcome and around the time period she started posting about it, she and her sister became "estranged". It's not clear what her sister did to Lucille or how she got on her bad side. But Lucille sued her sister. Ever since that, her sister has shown great determination to do Lucille in.
    For 7 years, Arlene Mulley demonstrated her will to get back at Lucille. For example, she tagged Lucille's websites making entries that Lucille was a "fraud", threatening to turn her in for driving when she had narcolepsy and a bunch of other entries resolving to; 'I'm going to get back at you and do you in'.

    Later she got a restraining order on Lucille. It's not clear for what other than for Lucille to stop all communications with her sister. But the way restraining orders are written in Massachusetts has some gaping loop hole in it where the person getting the restraining order to stop communications, can technically engage in communications with the party being restrained and if the party being restrained communicates back, they are seen in "violation" of the restraining order.

    Arlene Mulley is on record for taking advantage of restraining order to torment Lucille and knowing how to 'work the system' to do so. During the restraining order, she would frequently write Lucille harassing e-mails. E-mails Mulley knew would GOAD Lucille to complain about them. Yet when Lucille reported the harassing e-mails to Mully's place of employment (via the IP they arose from), Lucille was bagged with "violating" the restraining order. Why? Because a report from Lucille to Mulley's place of work, complaining that she was being harassed by her sister was deemed as a violation of the restraining order in the sense that the order restrained her from 3rd party communications about her sister and to her place of employment. Clearly, the harassing e-mails on the part of her sister were for Lucille to fall into the TRAP of reporting them.

    Another thing Mulley did was to harass Rich Bergeron. He once wrote her a polite e-mail telling her it would be nice if she would be on better terms with Lucille. That was followed by a warning from Mulley to never write her again concerning Lucille. It did not stop there though. Mulley then proceeded to write Bergeron other e-mails telling him she was going to report him as a "sexual predator". Although there was nothing in Bergeron's initial e-mail for any reasonable person to call him that, for some reason, she was confident she could pull it off. Later came more harassing e-mails from her. All of which GOADED both of them to report her and all of which she GLOATED in confidence that she could do both of them in. She's even on record for calling the Indiana court house telling them Lucille was a "fraud" and has also tagged some of the documents on docstoc.com with further gloating remarks of how great it was that Lucille was bagged.

    For 7 years, Mulley's public entries to Lucille along with her harassing e-mail assert that she's going to be a force for Lucille to contend with and that she knows how to work the system to do Lucille in. Lucille's suit against her and also complaints against her caused Mulley to lose 2 jobs. So, revenge on the part of Mulley certainly is at play here.

    For 7 years, Mulley is on record for taunting Lucille, pointing out she's smarter and more credentialed. Implication being that her capacity to do evil will be protected in some way by her credentials and her ability to work the law so that "fat assed", "old and ugly" Lucille and her "pathetic" "loser" writer friend; Rich Bergeron will haplessly suffer her vengeance.

    In light of 'who done it' and in the event there is still some mystery as to who drafted the suicide note Eppely used as his ticket to ride and drive this case in, the most likely culprit would not be Eppley. He just does not demonstrate that kind of capacity. Being bumble brained and/or fumble fingered (which could account for poor surgical outcome or not even getting the name of the muscle right he worked on; his calling it, in court; the "latissimus" and not the platysma or not keeping track as which anesthesiologist was actually in attendance) would clear him right there from being a "genius"; evil or otherwise. The most likely culprit for having drafted the suicide note would be Lucille's sister.

    Lucille's sister, for 7 years, has demonstrated the incentive and also the capacity to do Lucille in. Again, she got a restraining order on Lucille and then taunted Lucille by harassing Lucille as to taunt her to violate the restraining order. How? By knowing that the restraining order had a loop hole in it for Mulley to taunt Lucille but for which if Lucille even reported her, Lucille would be held in violation for "attempting contact' with Mulley. So, indeed Mulley knows how to work the legal system to the end of legally abusing her own sister and is on record for taunting Lucille that she can do so and will continue to do so.

    I'm surprised that if Lucille thought that suicide note was fabricated, WHY she thought it was fabricated by Eppley and not her own sister. I mean her sister has been taunting and harassing her for years (and mind you through the legal loop holes of what ever idiot drafted the legal language of Mass restraining orders), basically telling Lucille she's going to hammer in the nails to her coffin.

    Perhaps, I would be wrong here if it were proven without a shadow of a doubt that Lucille wrote the suicide threat herself. But in less it has, the mystery still is whether or not the note has been proven to come from Lucille herself. Surely, who ever wrote it knew in advance, it would be presumed to have come from her.

    So, Rich, if you are reading this, maybe you could salvage your book and write a mystery fiction novel (based on real life) while she is still ALIVE and call it something like: "The tale of 2 sisters. The lesser evil". Lucille could be portrayed as the lesser evil; someone disabled by the medical system where defaming it is her only option for justice. Her sister could be portrayed as the greater evil, actually enabled by the medical system to disable her sister even more and get away with it. You could call Dr. Eppley; "Dr Inadeptly" in the book and his law firm; Lewis and Kappes as "Dewey Cheatam and Howe".

    +6 Votes
  • D
      Apr 24, 2010

    To Saga of twisted sister:

    Did you monitor Awfulplasticsurgery.com when that site had an active page about Lucille's surgery? Her sister Arlene constantly attacked Lucille with such venom and filth that they finally removed the page altogether.

    I've been following Lucille's case for years. Having had surgery myself, I studied her before and after photos with a critical eye and found her quite knowledgeable about facial surgery techniques. There's never been any doubt in my mind that she is credible. Eppley never tried to take down her websites before the "suicide" hoax because he knew she reported the facts accurately and he didn't have a leg to stand on.

    You may very well be right about her sister being the culprit. From everything I've read (and heard!) from Arlene Mulley, she is more than capable of masterminding that suicide message to Eppley in Lucille's name. I read a post somewhere that Eppley had Lucille's computer examined and was never able to prove that Lucille sent the message. This was one of the postings that was removed by Eppley's court order.

    There was also something posted on YouTube that indicated her sister may have started the whole ball rolling in regard to Eppley's legal action. I recall reading an email Arlene sent to Andrea Bradley-Stutz, who is Eppley's girlfriend and business partner, where she disparaged Lucille in a way that certainly was more than defamatory.

    Arlene sounds like she has a serious mental problem. She's downright scary. She's on Twitter under the name Arlene Toupin. Check out her Twitter page and make sure you subscribe to her feed and open it on Google Reader. You'll see her DELETED posts, which will make your toes curl.

    https://twitter.com/arltoupin

    You have to subscribe to her feed to see the deleted stuff. Unbelievable.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 24, 2010

    I've read a lot of her stuff and it is unbelievable. Clear to me it arises from a vendetta.

    +5 Votes
  • S
      Apr 25, 2010

    The case is pretty interesting because it has a lot of twists and turns. The twisted sister is just one twist of it in the event there is still a 'mystery' as to 'who done it' for the suicide threat that got this case to go through. I don't know though if the court demystified if came from Lucille's computer or not. What's clear is that presumption was made and her affidavit saying she did not write it made no difference to them.

    I was reading some of the transcripts of the Eppley vs. Iacovelli court case. They are hard to find because they often get removed for some reason. When I say transcripts, I'm referring to the part where they transcribe what people in court say to each other. Some more interesting tidbits follow:

    Eppley said that Lucille did not pay for the surgery she got and the judge said something to the effect of; 'All this and that too?'

    Eppley said he pays about 3 grand a month to try to dilute her content. Things like expenses towards having a blog written so that the search engines bring those up as to offset them bringing up her stuff first. He told the judge he loses about 1 patient a month who cancel surgery and I guess somehow reference Lucille's stuff as the reason.

    It seems like all this court case has done is anger her more because even when they ordered her to stop writing about him, she still did or did not "cause to be removed" some posts photos or videos. They fined her (which was in an article on Indiana Business Journal: "Judge Fines woman waging web war on plastic surgeon"). But her financial circumstances are such that she would not be able to pay the fine.

    He's told the judge that he is not getting the type of "relief" he's wanting from this court case. (Because even with going to court, she still writes about him or what he wants to be removed from the web is not removed.) He wants a court order that will oblige the website owners housing her stuff to remove it or for Google to some how sever linkage to her stuff when his name is searched. I'm not sure how that works or would work though. For example, a website owner could take a look at what she has on there and maybe not find much "illegal" with it and maybe elect to keep it up there. The court case does seem to be one where they want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Here, the "bath water" would be perhaps something the website owner housing her stuff would want removed due to Terms of Service violation, if that were the case. But the "baby" would be things like actual photos that the website owner had no problems with. What I'm saying is that I don't know if a court order saying to remove ALL stuff trumps a website owners right to keep stuff that is not a TOS violation for that website.

    So now the type of "relief" he wants (because she's not cooperating) is in the form of court orders to websites to remove her stuff or court orders to Google to do something with the search engines so that searches for Barry Eppley don't call up stuff by Lucille Iacovelli too close to his. (Something like that.). Although Eppley said he paid Search Engine Optimization reputation management type firms to that end, Google has some kind of secret algorithm as to the stuff they call up first during a search. Although Eppley had an expert witness who told the judge it would not be too much trouble for Google to alter what is called up high in a search, no one knows what Google's secret algorithm is. Like if his request to them somehow involves altering Google's secret algorithm just for him, I don't think they could do that as it could alter the whole system.

    So, basically, it looks like he won his court case but he's not getting the type of "relief" he was hoping for; not to the extent he would like it to be.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 25, 2010

    OMG!!! I just found a court document Eppley wants removed from the web. It's a court document which within it demands that the website owner (docstoc.com) remove all court documents of this case in addition to the court document demanding website owners remove court documents.


    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22153982/12-31-2009-Proposed-All-Writs-Order


    "Man o man this court case is just WRONG.

    Eppley has effected an "All Writs" order for websites storing the court order documents to be removed. That goes way beyond just removing her stuff which they are claiming is defamation. Way beyond the pale.

    For example, they are ordering the website; docstoc where a lot of the documents about the court case can be found to remove them. That is just WRONG. Why? Because the documents from the court case are in no way "defamatory". They are actual transcripts coming from the court. There is nothing "illegal" in showing actual transcripts coming from the court. Yet Barker's court wants the transcripts of Barker's court removed from the web because Eppley wants that kind of "relief". It's WRONG.

    At this point, Eppley is being given a type of "relief" that does impinge on the first rights amendments of others. Website owners housing documents of the court case have the right to do so and viewers have the right to read them and or discuss their contents. There is NOTHING within actual court documents to be considered a violation for one to make public and NOTHING within actual court documents against the TOS policy and rights for a website storing legal documents (such as docstoc.com) to have them remain.

    A court order for Lucille Iacovelli to refrain from "defamatory" commentary about Barry Eppley should not also violate the rights of others. It is the website owners RIGHT to store court documents. It matters not if they are about Barry Eppley vs. Lucille Iacovelli. They are still court documents within the right for the website owner to have on his/her website. Yet this particular court order effects to force the website owner of docstoc.com to remove court documents he/she is well within his/her right to have on his/her site.

    It's WRONG. It's no wonder why Iacovelli is acting "in contempt" of court. Here, Eppley's court "relief" is clearly in favor of depriving website owners right to house court documents. They are telling the website owners storing the legal documents of the court case to REMOVE them.

    The website owner of doctoc.com should put up a stink, get in touch with the media that they are being ordered to remove court documents of the Eppley vs. Iacovelli case . Court orders aimed at "relief" for Barry Eppley SHOULD NOT also violate the first amendment rights of others. THAT'S the insidious problem with this particular case. It's WRONG.
    Let that go on record that this is being done!"

    +3 Votes
  • M
      Apr 27, 2010

    Doctors need to be accountable for their messy work. We already have too many doctors in this nation. We need to weed the bad ones out. Why should patients have to paid for botched surgeries???? It is like stealing our money. If they botched it, they need to paid out for the mess they created on people's faces and bodies. In the case of plastic surgeries, doctors post only good results misleading the general public to think that all their work is like good!!!

    Thank you so much for posting your story. The public has the right to know about stuff like this. Plastic surgeries is very popular and common in United States and this topic is of strong public interest. The public is tired of hearing all the successsful plastic surgeries, which are posted on most doctor's websites, but what about the botched work????????????? Come on doctors no more misleading the public about any of your work, especially this Dr. Barry Eppley. Proof is overwhelming in Dr. Eppley's case. This lady looked way better before he touched her. Dr. Eppley please go back and work as a dentist where you can do less damage.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 27, 2010

    Judge Barker called on an "All Writs Act" to give Eppley the type of "relief" he wanted which was for Lucille and her "associates" to stop posting about him on the web and to also effectuate being removed from the web. I think this "All Writs Act" came into play after it became quite clear to the judge and Eppley's lawyers that the court telling Lucille directly to do that did not work. The injunction said she had to remove all content associated with Eppley and stop writing about him altogether and also refrain from writing/complaining about this particular court case. Lucille did not cooperate with the terms of the injunction. I think to her, the terms of the injunction were tantamount to telling her: 'Erase all documentation that you ever even existed on the web'. So, she did not remove everything they wanted her to remove or did not cause other parties other parties to remove them, (which is hard to do when 1000's of who knows who people have read her stuff and reposted it.)

    What Eppley wanted removed was not gone from the web. Lucille and Bergeron were not wanting to go down easily, put up a fight and elected to defy all of the terms for all of the removal. They removed some things but not all of them. So the court wanted to enlist the cooperation with 3rd or "other" parties to remove what Lucille was not removing which came in the form of a "Writ" directed at 3rd parties.

    "The All Writs Act is a federal law that empowers federal courts to issue the writs (court orders) that are "necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." It's sort of a catch-all law, allowing the court to get assistance from a third party to execute a prior order of the court, so long as the assistance required is not overly burdensome and does not violate the Constitution."

    The writ wanted website owners housing her material to remove it and also for Google to remove association of Eppley from Iacovelli's stuff by altering in some way what was brought up first by their search engines.

    Thing here, the writ says: "as long as assistance required is not overly burdensome" or "does not violate the constitution" I guess it would not be "overly burdensome" for a website owner to remove something if it looked like clear defamation or against their TOS policy which could apply to some of her content but not to all of it. However, what if the request asks the website owner to violate his/her constitutional rights?

    For example, this writ also refers to legal documents actually filed with the court; court documents to be removed from a website (docstoc.com) aimed at storing legal documents. It would demand the website owner (who does have the right to have those legal documents up) to remove them. So a 3rd party getting this writ (court order) like a website owner might think the order violates his/her rights to house documents especially legal documents arising from the court.

    Basically, this writ/court order drafted out for Eppley could be perceived at ordering a 3rd party to do something (remove content) that is their right to keep on their website.

    Some website owners housing her stuff could feel affronted to get a court order telling them to remove all of it and could further "frustrate" the type of "relief" Eppley wants by telling him it's their right to keep it. For example, he had a hard time with the owner of SqueakyWheel.com when he wanted them to totally obliterate her complaint of him there. The owner told him his policy was for him to resolve his complaint with her directly. Eppley then told him Lucille was a psychopath who had been defaming him for many years and that he was not dealing with a "normal" person here as to get the owner to take it down. The owner did not budge. So, if he now goes back to that owner, hits him with the writ/court order, the owner could tell him it's his right to keep the complaint until it's resolved or seek some defensive legal grounds aimed at protecting his right to free speech and to claim the demand violates it.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 27, 2010

    OK, so this court case is very interesting and intriguing to me and enough so that it's hard not to discuss it.
    Here is what Eppley's lawyers did.

    They got the court to accept some pretty questionable presumptions as "fact". For example, they got the court to accept as "fact" that Lucille wrote the suicide letter and also that all or most of her content (no matter what it was) was "defamatory". They used her unwillingness to engage in discovery and her continued "contempt" of not doing what they told her to do as a means for accepting everything Eppley claimed as "fact"

    So, even though it might not be a "fact" that she wrote the suicide letter and even though it's certainly NOT a "fact" that "all" of her content is "defamatory", the court is accepting it as "fact" and using her unwillingness to engage in discovery (which is the act of them actually looking in her computer) to a have the judge accept it as "fact"

    The court further tells her that because she did not want to engage in discovery (which could have either have proved her assertion that she did not draft the suicide note or contradict it or proved that she herself did not add more entries when they told her not to or contradict it it) that they were going to accept all the things she said were "not true" (Eppley's accusations against her) as "fact" and are not going to even entertain any further protests or statements from her aimed at defending herself from any of his accusations.

    In other words, the court was telling her they were unwilling to accept any more written statements from her telling them the accusations against her were UNTRUE and were LIES on the part of Eppley because she did not participate with the court in the way they wanted her to participate and because of that, they were not going to accept any of her statements telling them she did not write the suicide letter, telling them the content remaining was actually not defamatory at all or telling them she could not control what others wrote as "true". Instead, they were just going to accept Eppley's statements as "true". (Because the court felt she did not meet the burden of disproving them; the act of having her computer inspected by Eppley's team to see what was in there).

    Basically, they used anything she did or said to protest what she felt were some injustices to her with this case to screw her more.

    +3 Votes
  • M
      Apr 27, 2010

    Those who might think this is not their business or it wouldn't happen to them is wrong!!! Botched plastic surgeries or surgeries without informed consent can happen to anyone. We need to make these evil doctors accountable for their evil actions.

    *************************************************
    Too many people had plastic surgeries and are hypocrites about it too. They hide the truth and want people to think they are all natural, but the truth is if there isn't such a high demand for plastic surgeries, then why so many plastic surgeons or doctors wannabe plastic surgeons all over the United States??? . Each year, there are more and more doctors wanting to do comestic surgeries on people due to the lucrative nature of this type of business. I read some dentist are doing some comestic surgeries too. Yuk!!! Too many medical students already wanting to go into the field of plastic surgereis. We the public must seee that the evil ones get eed out by airing their evil doings on the internet. Of course, people can decide rather to go to them or not, but at least they have some information of their evil doings.

    ATTENTION!!! People need to come forth and air out their botched surgeries so we can discourage
    these evil greedy doctors from thinking they can get away with this kind of unacceptable conducts.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 28, 2010

    Mandy,

    If you are talking about Eppley, it certainly looks like some have tried. The FDA dropped Eppley a line about objectionable conditions in 2006. Here is the link: http://www.circare.org/fdawls3/eppley_20060822.pdf

    As you know, Lucille Iacovelli was/is his largest critic but he got her locked up for it.

    Here are some of her videos
    http://vodpod.com/plasticdisaster

    +3 Votes
  • S
      Apr 30, 2010

    I feel so bad for Lucille and this whole court case thing with Barry Eppley.

    Lucille, if you are reading this, I talked to a lawyer the other day about this whole court case fiasco and will relay what he said after I described some of the problems you had with it.

    Of course, he said; "You should have had a REAL lawyer" but he gave the reasons.

    First reason might be obvious. He said the courts don't take people wanting to play the 'pro-se' lawyer seriously simply because most of the time, they get the filing protocols or things like that wrong and it goes without saying they look at you worse when a non lawyer is putting documents together ect. Not to mention the court was probably frustrated and annoyed at the contempt part of it all. But that's obvious.

    The next reason is not so obvious and it has to do with the judge just being in capacity to act on what EACH SIDE of the LAWYERS say. Like the judge takes into consideration what EACH party's LAWYER says. It's because the lawyers know HOW to convey the information to the judge for the information to be considered by the judge. Like when you give your info to the judge, the judge is really not in the position to take the salient parts of the information and present it to herself in such a way that your info makes a compelling point to the judge. That's what lawyers do (best). They take the information you have for your defense and take the best parts of that and present the points of such in a certain way to influence the judge.

    At the beginning of the hearing, if you recall, the judge kept on trying to tell you it would be BEST if you had a lawyer. My lawyer friend said that could be because the judge DID see something about your case where she knew you would have a better chance if you had one. But for which she herself, could not act in your behalf (because judges are not supposed to do that). My friend said that a good defense attorney would have been able to call Eppley's ethics into question right on the spot which would have had a good chance of throwing the case out of court. He said that a good defense attorney would have seized the opportunity in a heart beat to say something like: "Your honor, the plaintiff called in the suicide threat to the authorities 13 DAYS after he received it. As a doctor, it was his responsibility to call it in as soon as he got it or close to that time." "If he did not take it seriously enough to call the authorities soon after he got it, there is no cause to take it seriously in a court of law." (Something like that) or maybe a complaint to the medical board of Indiana for failure to report a suicide threat in a timely manner. WHO KNOWS. Maybe if you had a REAL lawyer, he could have told Eppley's crew: 'You don't toss this out and we will report to med board for failure to report suicide threat in timely manner"

    He said a good defense attorney would have 'worked' that point and in an effective way. So, it would not matter WHO wrote it. IF he got a "suicide threat" that he presumed was from you, his medical obligation would have been to call it in (to the Mass authorities) SHORTLY after he got it. Not 13 days after!!! But it's a situation where the judge would need a LAWYER to stress that and bring that point home effectively. Seriously, IF you had a defense attorney, he would have asked WHY a doctor WAITED 13 DAYS to report a suicide threat if he thought it was a genuine one.

    Yes, you know why and a defense attorney would know why. Answer being that Eppley wanted 13 days to put his case together and more after that banking you would be in the brinker after he reported on day 13 and he would win by default. Like there could have been some moral obligation for a DOCTOR to report the threat SOON after he got it (not 13 days afterwards!!!) which could have been called into question by a good defense attorney in a way to get the judge to toss the case out. Some glitch where if the judge challenged Eppley in the same way a defense attorney would have, than it 'positions' the judge to act in your defense which judges don't do. They just act on what EACH party's lawyer tells them.

    My lawyer friend also said that in a court case where the defendant does not have a lawyer that the plaintiff's lawyer can bring in a bunch of inappropriate questions or accusations will REMAIN UNCHALLENGED if there is no defense attorney. Something where it's not the judges 'job' to object to some inappropriate questions or to challenge PATENT ACCUSATIONS. That's for a defense attorney to do and if there is no defense attorney a lot of patent accusations become presumed as true by the judge which was what happened to you.

    The judge did not 'hear out' your objections to the accusations and circumstances because there is a protocol and 'way' to present them that real lawyers KNOW how to do that pro-se defense don't know how to do and someone not a lawyer, advising you can really screw up your case which is what happened. Like the more Bergeron advised you or acted in your behalf, the less they took him seriously and the more they just accepted everything Eppley's lawyers put through. So, his involvement just ended up in the judge taking all Eppley's claims as "fact" because there is some legal GLITCH or rule that if one party consistently does not cooperate (shows pattern of contempt) and consistently does not follow the right protocol for submitting papers to the court, then the court just by DEFAULT, DEFERS to the claims of the other party and they accept them, right or wrong and with no challenge. That's what happened to you.

    So, in hind sight, the most simple thing to have said to that judge would have been something like: "If he took the suicide threat seriously and presumed it was from Lucille Iacovelli, his moral obligation as a doctor would have been to report it shortly after getting it. Not 13 days afterward. Failure to report it soon after he got it belies he did not take it seriously and therefore a court case, restraining order revolving around it should not be taken seriously either."

    I know you tried to convey same. But my lawyer friend said that's the type of thing the defense attorneys know how to convey effectively.

    Hope this helps explain some things and that you find a real lawyer even if it's just to explain this sort of thing.

    +3 Votes
  • D
      May 01, 2010

    Wow! This all makes perfect sense! Sure, it's nice to think that people can represent themselves in court, but let's face it- lawyers are trained to know all the ins and outs of the system and have the ability to maneuver through the system in ways that are acceptable and conform with courtroom protocol.

    That Eppley waited 13 days after he received this suicide threat to report this was a real shocker!!! I didn't realize that. This seems like something only a lawyer would pick up on, as from everything I've read on this case (a lot!) nobody else did.

    I think Lucille mentioned that she contacted numerous lawyers, law schools, Civil Liberties, etc. trying to find a lawyer to take her case pro bono, but to no avail.

    It's understandable that the contempt and ignoring the court order, even if it was "unlawful" would aggravate the judge. Bergeron tried to help, and should be commended for his good intention, but not being a "real lawyer" he couldn't finesse and negotiate with the other side as one who does that for a living. His caustic words about the judge may have done more harm than good at some points in this case, too.

    It's all very sad, because Lucille really has been a great source of information for patients and put herself out there so other women would not make the same mistake she did. She's been misquoted and misunderstood by media and those forums where plastic surgery patients go for info. Most of them don't know that Lucille started the very first plastic surgery message board that allowed members to post the names of doctors. I wish I'd saved her very website on AOL with all her letters back and forth with Mass General and her photos showing the changes month by month. There was a wealth of info there for plastic surgeons to learn from a patient who understood the nuances of surgical technique and its effect on anatomy.

    Contrary to what Eppley would have people believe, Lucille Iacovelli knew more about the effects of various facial surgical techniques than most surgeons. Not to risk my ananominity, but I've worked at UMASS Medical School since 1980 and actually met Lucille a few times when she accompanied Dr. McKernan to CME lectures. My friend was a medical student at the time and would talk about this young woman living with an old GP and acted as his "handmaiden". My friend said she had a natural aptitude for understanding medical literature and could hold her own in discussions with doctors. When her GP companion was diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent radiation treatment, Lucille found studies on the then experimental use of Lupron for treatment of prostate cancer. She contacted the author of the study and the pharmaceutical company and convinced the rep from Abbot to supply the old doc with Lupron. He lived for quite a few years after that. The word among docs was that she saved his life by taking action.

    I've often wanted to contact Lucille to let her know she made a positive impression way back then, but never did. I hope she reads this and knows there are people who respect her intelligence and courage, even if we do it anonymously.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      May 01, 2010

    Yes. Eppley waited 13 days before he reported the suicide threat. So, I guess a lawyer could have challenged that in some way. Lucille, of course pointed it out but in a rather long way. I think the problem with the pro se lawyer thing is that once you do something wrong, get a statute or something out of order where it does not apply or don't do the protocol they have to submit papers, that's the point where the judge does not take the person seriously and defers to the side that has the lawyers.

    I'm not sure but I think there are some lawyers who will do discount or free stuff for low income people; "Legal Aid".

    Anyway, last I check she rewrote some of her losingface.net website. It reads MUCH better and has a lot of the stuff they consider "defamatory" edited out. Maybe she had a lawyer help her rewrite. Don't know but the site is much better and easier to read.

    She did give Eppley a run for his money though due to her not cooperating totally with the injunction. Because that's when he got judge to do some 'All Writs' order; a type of court order that goes to website owners housing her stuff or to Google giving links telling them to remove. But still, It may be within their rights to keep it up.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      May 01, 2010

    In court, Eppley told the judge the WRONG name of the muscle he operated on. He called the platysma the "latissmus". So, the judge had NO CLUE he got the muscle name wrong. A good defense lawyer would have been all over that one, (if Lucille were there too): "Your honor, I object to having Eppley act as his own expert witness if he can't even get the name of the muscle he operated on right". Seriously, the court transcripts have the platysma muscle down as the "Latissmus".

    Then Eppley told the judge that the muscle in question had NO USE other than to be a BAND around the neck. So, that's another example where the judge just accepts that as "true" because there is no defense attorney to OBJECT and no Lucille sitting next to him to tell him Eppley's statement is an untruth.

    So, there Eppley was in court, telling the judge the wrong name of the muscle and saying it had "little use". Lucille could have been down his throat on that one to point out that it does have a use and does have a proper name and his "expert testimony" should be discounted. Also opportunity for defense attorney to ask something like:

    "Dr. Eppley, if you don't know the proper name of the muscle and you think it has "little use" (which is just wrong by the way!!), perhaps you did do the surgery incorrectly by virtue of disregarding the use that it does have."

    Basically, Eppley got his court case through, got to toss in a bunch of accusations as to ALL of her content being "defamatory" (which was not true) because there was NO defense lawyer to counter him.

    So, a lot of crap just flys on through when there is no one to say: "I object" in the court room to do so. That's why his case flew through. I think the protocol for hearing, trial ect is that one needs to be in the court room to object or else, what the other side says just flys through. That's what my lawyer friend told me.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      May 01, 2010

    Actually, on second thought, her way of fighting back at Eppley via the contempt of court thing served her well (in a way). You know for the life of them, they could not get her to remove everything they wanted her to remove. She refused. LOL. He wanted it all removed as to erase her from the net so that a Google search for his name would not bring up any of her stuff too close to it. It does not look like the court order worked; the one bossing website owners and Google to either remove her stuff or change the way things are called up in a search. Last I checked, a search of his name has her complaints about him FRAMING his photos and name. So, all his efforts did not pan out too well with what he wanted.

    So, I would say there is something to be said about not going down easily when they bring on these law suits for critical commentary about doctors. I mean, it does look like she fought it pretty well without a lawyer in terms of her keeping a large amount of her 'stuff' on the net. It looks like most which remains is within the bounds of criticism and can't patently be called "defamatory".

    +3 Votes
  • D
      May 05, 2010

    Yes, I noticed that, too. Her stuff is still up there on page one in a Google search of his name. I think that in suing suing Lucille, Dr. Eppley brought more negative attention to himself than might have happened had he simply ignored her.

    I wonder how much this cost him?

    +3 Votes
  • S
      May 05, 2010

    He certainly did not seem to get ALL he wanted. For example, he wanted her links NOT to come up NEXT to his in a Google search or not on first page. Now her links are right next to his.

    I could not really understand HOW he was going to have the court order get Google to alter the way they rank links as to separate his from hers so they are not close together when he is Googled. Google; Barry Eppley face lift videos and hers come up. LOL.

    As I said, she's not one to go down easily. When the other doctor sued her it got MORE publicity and I think that backfired on him too. She also got a signed sworn statement from the photographer that her photos were not retouched in any way and that was her appearance when she was photographed which she put up on her website after he sued her when one of his claims was 'photo misrepresentation and that's the part that backfired'. He did get her to take down the straight forward defamation parts though. (Any time you call a doctor a "butcher" or say he did "malpractice"; that's considered straight forward defamation.) But they always will toss as much in the suit as possible.

    With Eppley, he tossed a lot of things in for everything to go away and the judge was going to give him everything when she did not cooperate. Thing is a court order for websites to remove residual stuff that to the website owner, does not look like defamation can be hard, especially if the website owner feels the court order interferes with his/her free speech. So, I think it will be hard for them to get every site to remove everything.

    Thing is she is not talking about the court case anymore. Maybe they did put the screws on her for discussing it further. I think a page for her to right would be:

    "I fought the law and the law won." or "Face lift fugitive on the run"; some page where she describes how she defied the court in this instance would be interesting.

    +3 Votes
  • D
      May 08, 2010

    Eppley shouldn't be allowed in an operating room, period. He's nothing but a greedy self promoter taking advantage of women. I never should have allowed my wife to consult with Eppley without my being there. I only met him after he messed up her face and body.

    Barry Eppley is slick and sleazy, very capable of snowing vulnerable women. He is unskilled as a surgeon.

    From what I've read about his attack on the woman from Massachusetts, could she have grounds to sue him for having her taken from home against her will on false pretenses? How did he get away with that without proof positive that the suicide note came from her?

    +3 Votes
  • D
      May 08, 2010

    13 days ago by Saga of twisted sister:
    "So, Rich, if you are reading this, maybe you could salvage your book and write a mystery fiction novel (based on real life) while she is still ALIVE and call it something like: "The tale of 2 sisters. The lesser evil". Lucille could be portrayed as the lesser evil; someone disabled by the medical system where defaming it is her only option for justice. Her sister could be portrayed as the greater evil, actually enabled by the medical system to disable her sister even more and get away with it. You could call Dr. Eppley; "Dr Inadeptly" in the book and his law firm; Lewis and Kappes as "Dewey Cheatam and Howe".
    --
    This is brilliant. Yes, a book should be written about this. 'Saga of twisted sister' makes some great points regarding the intriguing twists and turns of this "saga". You have to hand it to Lucille and Rich. They've been fighting the good fight here for a while. And isn't this kind of protest of injustice what paves the way for real social change? Today they are accused of "contempt" of a court order, but in the future they may be lauded as courageous heroes.

    +2 Votes
  • S
      May 09, 2010

    As to Eppley, although I have no idea how "bad" he is as a doctor, he just does not seem that good. Gotta wonder why a cranio-facial doc is doing so many breasts, tummy tucks, lipo dissolve etc. If a cranio-facial doc is really good, especially one with training in maxillo-facial surgery, he would not be needing to do the other things simply because you would think a cranio-facial guy could do a whole lot more with the face than a regular PS given altering bone structure is something most PSs don't do to many parts of the face.
    Although his BLOG articles are well written, Lucille said he has a professional writer do them for him.

    The part in court where he got the name of the muscle he was working on wrong and also stated it had "little use" certainly was impressive and perhaps does belie he has a professional writer doing his blog to give him a good presentation.

    I don't know if she would have grounds to sue him at this point. The point to have called him up on the 13 days after reporting deal would have been in court as to question why he waited 13 days if he thought a (former) patients life was at risk or took the threat seriously. It would have had to be challenged at that time in an attempt to preempt the full blown injunction he got through via the suicide threat.

    I do think the story has many twists to it that make it intriguing enough to write a book about.

    +3 Votes
  • D
      May 09, 2010

    Lucille's sister is a twisted one, indeed. What kind of person leaves phone messages like these?

    http://digg.com/d31Qe4F

    Scary.

    +2 Votes
  • D
      May 09, 2010

    BTW, Arlene Mulley (Lucille's sister) works for the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health & ###ation.

    More scary.

    +3 Votes
  • S
      May 09, 2010

    I thought she worked as a respiratory nurse at Hubbard Health.

    +3 Votes

Post your comment