Restraint, Response, or Retaliation: Dentists Need to Think Carefully Before Responding to Negative Online Reviews

Jordan Uditsky • February 4, 2020
Dentistry may be a unique profession with a proud history, but online, a dental practice is no different than a dry cleaner, restaurant, mechanic, or liquor store. That is because dental patients are just as likely to post a review of their experience on Yelp! or other online review sites as are customers of other businesses. And, as is the case for all businesses and professions, customers who have negative opinions tend to share those more often, and more adamantly, than those who have positive things to say. And Mary Alberti recently had a lot to say about her experience with a Buffalo Grove, Illinois endodontist. 

As outlined in a defamation lawsuit the endodontist filed against Alberti, his former patient engaged in a concerted internet smear campaign to destroy his good name and reputation by posting “post after post” on Yelp!, Google, and other sites that contained false, defamatory, and anti-Semitic comments. He is seeking more than $4 million in damages, while Alberti has moved to have the case dismissed.
  
While the allegations in the Alberti case represent an extreme example of an angry, vindictive, and prolific patient using the internet to smear a dentist with an otherwise impeccable record, even one negative review can have a significant impact on a dentist’s practice and reputation. 

Can You Sue for Defamation? Sure. Whether You Should Is a Much Harder Question

On more than one occasion, a panicked and indignant dentist or other client of mine has called me to ask whether they could and should sue their former patient for defamation as the doctor in the Alberti case has done. The answer, of course, is that you are well within your rights to sue "IHateYourDentalPractice123” or whoever it is that is trying to take a wrecking ball to your career. You can sue anybody for anything. Whether such a lawsuit will be successful or has any legal basis is another matter entirely. 

The fact is that even the most scathing negative online review, if susceptible to the principle of “innocent construction” (meaning the allegedly libelous statement is given a non-defamatory interpretation because it is deemed ambiguous) or is composed of opinions rather than demonstrably false allegations of misconduct, will likely not qualify as actionable defamation in Illinois. Furthermore, such lawsuits can expose the offended dentist or other professional to backlash, ridicule, and bad publicity in the fast-moving and fickle world of social media.

If you look to hold online review sites and other platforms responsible for false and defamatory information posted by reviewers, you won’t get terribly far. While you may be able to get a website to remove a particularly egregious post, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act largely immunizes such sites from claims based on comments or reviews posted by third party users.

A High Bar to Prove Defamation in Illinois

In order for a dentist to prove defamation under Illinois law, including a claim based on an online review, he or she needs to show that:
  • the patient made a false statement about the dentist;
  • there was an unprivileged publication of the false statement to a third party;
  • fault by the defendant amounting to at least negligence; and
  • the patient’s publication of the review caused damage to the dentist.

As to that last element, a defamation plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages if the statements are deemed inherently damaging. Defamation per se, as it is called, includes making such false allegations that the plaintiff:
  • committed a crime;
  • is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
  • is unable to perform or lacks integrity in fulfilling his or her professional responsibilities;
  • lacks the ability to perform their professional duties, or otherwise harms the plaintiff in their professional reputation
  • has committed fornication or adultery.
Is It a Subjective Opinion or Factual Allegation?

The most common issue that arises in defamation cases based on online reviews is the question of whether or not a statement was false. Only false statements of fact can form the basis of a defamation claim, not opinions, no matter how histrionic or counterfactual they may be. A statement of fact is one that can be objectively proved or disproved. Consider the two following hypothetical reviews of a dentist:

“She was rude, impatient, and treated me disrespectfully. It was perhaps the worst experience I’ve ever had with a dentist in my entire life. She is horrible.” 

“He stole money from my purse and touched me inappropriately while I was under sedation.”

The former is non-actionable opinion, as the dentist will not be able to objectively prove whether or not she was, in fact, rude, disrespectful and the cause of one of the worst experiences in the patient’s life. Contrast that with the latter statement that accuses the dentist of specific actions and misconduct that can be proven or disproven with evidence. 

Context Matters

Illinois courts have also focused on the context in which an allegedly defamatory statement was made when determining whether it can be the basis of a defamation claim. Even if one comment in a lengthy online rant is arguably a statement of provable fact, it may not rise to the level of defamation if a reasonable reader would see it merely as hyperbolic invective.

Consider the 2013 case of Brompton Building, LLC v. Yelp, Inc., in which a building management company filed a defamation suit against an anonymous former tenant who had posted an over-the-top, relentlessly negative, and extremely lengthy review online. Even though the rant contained a few objectively disprovable statements, the Illinois Appellate Court found that those comments could not support a defamation claim because they would not be understood to be actual factual allegations in the context of the full review. As the court stated, "The context of the defamatory statements is critical in determining its meaning. In determining the context of the defamatory statements, we must read the writing containing the defamatory statement 'as a whole.'"

Dentists Need to Consider Patient Privacy and Professional Ethics

When faced with negative reviews, dentists need to make sure that their response doesn’t make a bad situation worse or make them appear petty and vindictive. Additionally, dentists who do decide to respond to a patient’s negative review publicly may inadvertently reveal confidential patient information in their attempts to refute allegations of poor or substandard care. Such HIPPA violations can have catastrophic licensing and regulatory consequences for dentists. 

As infuriating as negative online reviews can be, it is the rare dentist who can make it through their career without leaving at least one patient dissatisfied or unhappy with their treatment. When a patient shares those feelings with the world, it can be easy to let it get under your skin, especially if the attacks are as relentless, ongoing, and full of unsavory allegations as appear in the Alberti case, which we’ll be monitoring to see if the court protects the endodontist from what seems to be a clear case of defamation. But sometimes, restraint can speak louder than a retort. 

Speak to an Attorney

Related Posts
By Jordan Uditsky • October 21, 2026
Getting in Sync: The Practical Challenges of Integrating Your Practice With a DSO  Almost all mergers, whether they involve two giant corporations or two new spouses, present a multitude of challenges. Each party has their own way of doing things, each may possess capabilities or infrastructure that are duplicative of the other, and each will need to get used to a new dynamic that may, at first, cause some friction and pushback. Such is the case when an independent dental practice must integrate its operations, policies, and affairs with those of a far larger dental service organization (DSO) after the latter acquires the former. While the management services agreement (MSA) and other documentation behind a DSO acquisition may address a broad spectrum of issues, including those affecting integration, the practical, on-the-ground realities of combining two businesses can make the transition difficult for the practice and the DSO alike. An MSA that may look straightforward on paper can become much more complicated once the practice is operating within the DSO's platform. The most successful integrations recognize such issues early and establish clear lines of responsibility between the clinical practice and the DSO. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Aligning the MSA With Day-to-Day Operations The MSA should clearly identify the services the DSO will provide, such as billing, human resources, accounting, procurement, information technology, marketing, and facilities management. But the parties should also understand how those services will actually be delivered, including such granular but critical matters as: Who must approve expenditures Who hires and terminates nonclinical employees Who controls the practice's bank accounts Who manages payer enrollment and credentialing Who owns the patient records and other data Who is responsible for regulatory compliance Ambiguity can lead to disputes, particularly when the parties have different expectations about the DSO's role. A well-drafted MSA should be supported by practical integration procedures that translate contractual provisions into everyday operations. Employee and Staffing Integration The practice owner and the DSO may be the only parties with their signatures on an MSA, but the document also plays a big role in the fate and future of the practice’s employees. Compensation structures, benefits, payroll systems, timekeeping, job responsibilities, and reporting relationships may all change. Before integration, the parties should determine whether employees will remain employed by the professional practice, become employees of another affiliated entity, or transition under another arrangement permitted by applicable law. Counsel should also carefully review existing employment agreements and restrictive covenants to ensure that those documents are not in conflict with any relevant provisions of the MSA. Another common issue is the integration of compensation systems. A DSO may use standardized compensation models, bonus structures, or productivity metrics that differ from those historically used by the practice. Those changes should be reviewed not only for employment-law considerations but also for potential implications under healthcare fraud-and-abuse laws and applicable fee-splitting restrictions. Technology, Data, and Patient Records The technological infrastructure of a dental practice is complex enough on its own, but integrating its practice-management software, electronic records platform, accounting system, or communication tools to systems used throughout the DSO takes that complexity — and related risks — to another level. Patient records must remain accurate and accessible, and the parties must address applicable HIPAA privacy and security obligations when patient information is transferred, accessed, or stored by DSO personnel and vendors. The integration plan should address data ownership, access rights, cybersecurity responsibilities, backup procedures, retention requirements, and procedures for responding to security incidents. A rushed technology conversion can disrupt patient care and lead to costly but avoidable compliance problems. Branding and Patient Relationships DSOs frequently seek to standardize branding, marketing, websites, telephone systems, and patient communications. While consistency can be valuable, practices should consider how these changes affect existing patient relationships. Patients may be confused if a familiar practice suddenly adopts a new name, website, phone number, or communication style. The integration plan should provide a thoughtful transition that explains changes without undermining patient confidence. Counsel should also review marketing materials for compliance with applicable advertising rules. Dental practices remain subject to professional obligations even when a centralized DSO team manages marketing and communications. Financial Integration and Revenue Cycle Management Another major integration issue is the transition to the DSO's accounting and revenue-cycle systems. Differences in billing procedures, collection policies, payer relationships, and financial reporting can produce surprises after closing. The parties should establish clear procedures for accounts receivable, refunds, patient balances, insurance claims, write-offs, and reconciliation. They should also determine how financial information will be reported to the practice and its owners. These issues are especially important where the selling dentist continues to own the professional entity or retains an economic interest in its operations. Consider and Address Practical Integration Issues Before Closing It’s one thing for a newly cohabitating couple to combine their kitchenware, furniture, and checking accounts; it’s quite another to merge two operationally complex, heavily regulated, and technologically dependent businesses with each other. Perhaps the most important lesson is that dental practice/DSO integration should not be treated simply as a matter of documentation or an administrative project that begins after the transaction closes. It should be part of the transaction planning process. Before closing, the parties should identify critical systems, personnel, vendors, contracts, licenses, payer relationships, technology platforms, and regulatory requirements. They should establish an integration timeline and assign responsibility for each major task. The parties must ensure that the legal structure, MSA, operational procedures, technology, employment arrangements, and clinical responsibilities work together. For dentists selling to or partnering with a DSO, experienced legal counsel can help identify integration risks before they become post-closing problems. If you are considering selling your dental practice to a DSO, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
By Jordan Uditsky • October 21, 2026
Respect My Authority: How Dental Practice Owners Can Preserve Clinical Autonomy After a Sale to a DSO Over the past several years, we have posted many articles on this blog discussing two particular topics: selling a dental practice to a dental service organization (DSO), and developments related to the corporate practice of dentistry by DSOs that stick their noses too much into a practice’s clinical operations and decision-making. At the center of the venn diagram linking these two issues is a concern that faces most dental practice owners when considering a sale to a DSO: how to maintain clinical autonomy and authority after a sale and prevent the DSO from interfering in this fundamental, non-administrative aspect of running a dental practice. While legislators and regulators debate about appropriate guardrails to put on DSOs to prevent their overreach into a dentist’s clinical responsibilities, it ultimately falls on the dental practice owner — and their counsel — to take the steps needed during negotiations to ensure that the documents governing the transaction include robust protections to preserve the dentist’s appropriate authority over clinical decisions. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Make Clinical Independence Explicit and Detailed in Writing One of the most important protections is an unequivocal contractual statement that clinical decisions remain under the licensed dentist's control. The purchase agreement, employment or professional services agreement, and other transaction documents should clearly distinguish between business decisions and clinical decisions. As with any contract, vagueness or lack of defined terms can plant the seeds of misunderstanding and conflict. Accordingly, a general promise that the dentist will maintain “clinical autonomy” without delineating what that actually means in practice is insufficient. The agreement should define what that autonomy means and identify decisions that cannot be dictated by non-clinical personnel, including, but not limited to: · Diagnosis · Treatment planning · Selection of appropriate treatment · Referrals · Patient communications concerning treatment · Prescribing · Use of clinical techniques and materials. Additionally, a dentist should consider provisions stating that treatment recommendations will be based on the patient's clinical needs and the dentist's independent professional judgment, rather than production targets, revenue goals, or other financial considerations. Establish Appropriate Limits on DSO Authority One of the main value-adds of selling to a DSO is that they typically assume responsibility for administrative services, including billing, scheduling, human resources, procurement, marketing, information technology, and facilities management. While many of these functions are easily distinguishable from clinical ones, there are areas where operational decisions could indirectly affect clinical care, such as scheduling policies, staffing levels, supply purchasing, laboratory arrangements, appointment lengths, and production incentives, all of which can have clinical implications. As such, the agreements should establish a clearly defined, workable boundary: the DSO manages the business, while the dentist retains authority over professional judgment. Compensation and Incentive Structures Can Pit Clinical Judgment and Business Objectives Against Each Other Compensation is another area that can create tension between a DSO’s business objectives and a dentist’s clinical judgment. Counsel should review an employment or services agreement to determine whether compensation formulas, production requirements, bonuses, quotas, or other incentives could pressure the dentist to recommend or perform treatment that the dentist would not otherwise recommend. That does not mean every production-based compensation arrangement is inappropriate. Rather, dentists should understand exactly how the formula works and consider contractual language confirming that compensation will not be contingent on making a particular clinical recommendation or on performing treatment the dentist does not believe is appropriate. One-Size-Fits-All Clinical Policies v. Individual Clinical Decisions Many DSOs have standardized policies that affect clinical practice which should be reviewed and addressed before closing. During due diligence and contract negotiations, practice owners and their counsel should understand the DSO's policies involving treatment protocols, referrals, supplies, laboratories, prescribing, infection control, scheduling, patient communications, and quality assurance. Such policies should allow appropriate clinical judgment where patient circumstances warrant an individualized approach, and the parties should establish how legitimate clinical exceptions will be handled. Clinical Autonomy Is Not a Set-It-and-Forget-It Issue The signing of documents at the consummation of a sale to a DSO may be the end of one process, but it is also marks the start of the actual, functioning relationship between the DSO and now-former practice owner. And that relationship can evolve over time in ways that can impact clinical autonomy. Another company may acquire the DSO; the practice could be transferred to another affiliated entity; and other management changes can alter or threaten the carefully negotiated dynamic reflected in the underlying agreements. Those agreements should address whether clinical-independence provisions survive such events and, where appropriate, whether they bind successors and affiliated entities. Selling a dental practice does not necessarily mean surrendering professional judgment. But clinical autonomy should not be left to assumptions, informal assurances, or legislators or regulators. It should be addressed explicitly in the transaction documents by sellers and their counsel. By doing so, dentists can reap the benefits of a DSO sale while retaining control over the one thing that no corporation or entity can or should: the practice of dentistry. If you are considering selling your dental practice to a DSO, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
By Jordan Uditsky • October 14, 2026
With Recently Introduced Bill, Congress Enters the Corporate Practice of Medicine/Dentistry Fray. How Would It Impact Dental Practices and DSOs?
Show More
By Jordan Uditsky • October 21, 2026
Getting in Sync: The Practical Challenges of Integrating Your Practice With a DSO  Almost all mergers, whether they involve two giant corporations or two new spouses, present a multitude of challenges. Each party has their own way of doing things, each may possess capabilities or infrastructure that are duplicative of the other, and each will need to get used to a new dynamic that may, at first, cause some friction and pushback. Such is the case when an independent dental practice must integrate its operations, policies, and affairs with those of a far larger dental service organization (DSO) after the latter acquires the former. While the management services agreement (MSA) and other documentation behind a DSO acquisition may address a broad spectrum of issues, including those affecting integration, the practical, on-the-ground realities of combining two businesses can make the transition difficult for the practice and the DSO alike. An MSA that may look straightforward on paper can become much more complicated once the practice is operating within the DSO's platform. The most successful integrations recognize such issues early and establish clear lines of responsibility between the clinical practice and the DSO. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Aligning the MSA With Day-to-Day Operations The MSA should clearly identify the services the DSO will provide, such as billing, human resources, accounting, procurement, information technology, marketing, and facilities management. But the parties should also understand how those services will actually be delivered, including such granular but critical matters as: Who must approve expenditures Who hires and terminates nonclinical employees Who controls the practice's bank accounts Who manages payer enrollment and credentialing Who owns the patient records and other data Who is responsible for regulatory compliance Ambiguity can lead to disputes, particularly when the parties have different expectations about the DSO's role. A well-drafted MSA should be supported by practical integration procedures that translate contractual provisions into everyday operations. Employee and Staffing Integration The practice owner and the DSO may be the only parties with their signatures on an MSA, but the document also plays a big role in the fate and future of the practice’s employees. Compensation structures, benefits, payroll systems, timekeeping, job responsibilities, and reporting relationships may all change. Before integration, the parties should determine whether employees will remain employed by the professional practice, become employees of another affiliated entity, or transition under another arrangement permitted by applicable law. Counsel should also carefully review existing employment agreements and restrictive covenants to ensure that those documents are not in conflict with any relevant provisions of the MSA. Another common issue is the integration of compensation systems. A DSO may use standardized compensation models, bonus structures, or productivity metrics that differ from those historically used by the practice. Those changes should be reviewed not only for employment-law considerations but also for potential implications under healthcare fraud-and-abuse laws and applicable fee-splitting restrictions. Technology, Data, and Patient Records The technological infrastructure of a dental practice is complex enough on its own, but integrating its practice-management software, electronic records platform, accounting system, or communication tools to systems used throughout the DSO takes that complexity — and related risks — to another level. Patient records must remain accurate and accessible, and the parties must address applicable HIPAA privacy and security obligations when patient information is transferred, accessed, or stored by DSO personnel and vendors. The integration plan should address data ownership, access rights, cybersecurity responsibilities, backup procedures, retention requirements, and procedures for responding to security incidents. A rushed technology conversion can disrupt patient care and lead to costly but avoidable compliance problems. Branding and Patient Relationships DSOs frequently seek to standardize branding, marketing, websites, telephone systems, and patient communications. While consistency can be valuable, practices should consider how these changes affect existing patient relationships. Patients may be confused if a familiar practice suddenly adopts a new name, website, phone number, or communication style. The integration plan should provide a thoughtful transition that explains changes without undermining patient confidence. Counsel should also review marketing materials for compliance with applicable advertising rules. Dental practices remain subject to professional obligations even when a centralized DSO team manages marketing and communications. Financial Integration and Revenue Cycle Management Another major integration issue is the transition to the DSO's accounting and revenue-cycle systems. Differences in billing procedures, collection policies, payer relationships, and financial reporting can produce surprises after closing. The parties should establish clear procedures for accounts receivable, refunds, patient balances, insurance claims, write-offs, and reconciliation. They should also determine how financial information will be reported to the practice and its owners. These issues are especially important where the selling dentist continues to own the professional entity or retains an economic interest in its operations. Consider and Address Practical Integration Issues Before Closing It’s one thing for a newly cohabitating couple to combine their kitchenware, furniture, and checking accounts; it’s quite another to merge two operationally complex, heavily regulated, and technologically dependent businesses with each other. Perhaps the most important lesson is that dental practice/DSO integration should not be treated simply as a matter of documentation or an administrative project that begins after the transaction closes. It should be part of the transaction planning process. Before closing, the parties should identify critical systems, personnel, vendors, contracts, licenses, payer relationships, technology platforms, and regulatory requirements. They should establish an integration timeline and assign responsibility for each major task. The parties must ensure that the legal structure, MSA, operational procedures, technology, employment arrangements, and clinical responsibilities work together. For dentists selling to or partnering with a DSO, experienced legal counsel can help identify integration risks before they become post-closing problems. If you are considering selling your dental practice to a DSO, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
By Jordan Uditsky • October 21, 2026
Respect My Authority: How Dental Practice Owners Can Preserve Clinical Autonomy After a Sale to a DSO Over the past several years, we have posted many articles on this blog discussing two particular topics: selling a dental practice to a dental service organization (DSO), and developments related to the corporate practice of dentistry by DSOs that stick their noses too much into a practice’s clinical operations and decision-making. At the center of the venn diagram linking these two issues is a concern that faces most dental practice owners when considering a sale to a DSO: how to maintain clinical autonomy and authority after a sale and prevent the DSO from interfering in this fundamental, non-administrative aspect of running a dental practice. While legislators and regulators debate about appropriate guardrails to put on DSOs to prevent their overreach into a dentist’s clinical responsibilities, it ultimately falls on the dental practice owner — and their counsel — to take the steps needed during negotiations to ensure that the documents governing the transaction include robust protections to preserve the dentist’s appropriate authority over clinical decisions. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Make Clinical Independence Explicit and Detailed in Writing One of the most important protections is an unequivocal contractual statement that clinical decisions remain under the licensed dentist's control. The purchase agreement, employment or professional services agreement, and other transaction documents should clearly distinguish between business decisions and clinical decisions. As with any contract, vagueness or lack of defined terms can plant the seeds of misunderstanding and conflict. Accordingly, a general promise that the dentist will maintain “clinical autonomy” without delineating what that actually means in practice is insufficient. The agreement should define what that autonomy means and identify decisions that cannot be dictated by non-clinical personnel, including, but not limited to: · Diagnosis · Treatment planning · Selection of appropriate treatment · Referrals · Patient communications concerning treatment · Prescribing · Use of clinical techniques and materials. Additionally, a dentist should consider provisions stating that treatment recommendations will be based on the patient's clinical needs and the dentist's independent professional judgment, rather than production targets, revenue goals, or other financial considerations. Establish Appropriate Limits on DSO Authority One of the main value-adds of selling to a DSO is that they typically assume responsibility for administrative services, including billing, scheduling, human resources, procurement, marketing, information technology, and facilities management. While many of these functions are easily distinguishable from clinical ones, there are areas where operational decisions could indirectly affect clinical care, such as scheduling policies, staffing levels, supply purchasing, laboratory arrangements, appointment lengths, and production incentives, all of which can have clinical implications. As such, the agreements should establish a clearly defined, workable boundary: the DSO manages the business, while the dentist retains authority over professional judgment. Compensation and Incentive Structures Can Pit Clinical Judgment and Business Objectives Against Each Other Compensation is another area that can create tension between a DSO’s business objectives and a dentist’s clinical judgment. Counsel should review an employment or services agreement to determine whether compensation formulas, production requirements, bonuses, quotas, or other incentives could pressure the dentist to recommend or perform treatment that the dentist would not otherwise recommend. That does not mean every production-based compensation arrangement is inappropriate. Rather, dentists should understand exactly how the formula works and consider contractual language confirming that compensation will not be contingent on making a particular clinical recommendation or on performing treatment the dentist does not believe is appropriate. One-Size-Fits-All Clinical Policies v. Individual Clinical Decisions Many DSOs have standardized policies that affect clinical practice which should be reviewed and addressed before closing. During due diligence and contract negotiations, practice owners and their counsel should understand the DSO's policies involving treatment protocols, referrals, supplies, laboratories, prescribing, infection control, scheduling, patient communications, and quality assurance. Such policies should allow appropriate clinical judgment where patient circumstances warrant an individualized approach, and the parties should establish how legitimate clinical exceptions will be handled. Clinical Autonomy Is Not a Set-It-and-Forget-It Issue The signing of documents at the consummation of a sale to a DSO may be the end of one process, but it is also marks the start of the actual, functioning relationship between the DSO and now-former practice owner. And that relationship can evolve over time in ways that can impact clinical autonomy. Another company may acquire the DSO; the practice could be transferred to another affiliated entity; and other management changes can alter or threaten the carefully negotiated dynamic reflected in the underlying agreements. Those agreements should address whether clinical-independence provisions survive such events and, where appropriate, whether they bind successors and affiliated entities. Selling a dental practice does not necessarily mean surrendering professional judgment. But clinical autonomy should not be left to assumptions, informal assurances, or legislators or regulators. It should be addressed explicitly in the transaction documents by sellers and their counsel. By doing so, dentists can reap the benefits of a DSO sale while retaining control over the one thing that no corporation or entity can or should: the practice of dentistry. If you are considering selling your dental practice to a DSO, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
By Jordan Uditsky • October 14, 2026
With Recently Introduced Bill, Congress Enters the Corporate Practice of Medicine/Dentistry Fray. How Would It Impact Dental Practices and DSOs?
Show More