Complaint Review: Dr. DOuglas Hauck | Notice: Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Decision: A neutral and independent Arbitrator has determined that the following Report contained one or more false statements of facts. The false statements have been redacted as ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)) | Furthermore, the Arbitrator was unable to determine if the Author of the Report was a patient or a competitor. | Dr. DOuglas Hauck In my opinion, he is a terrible dentist Corona Del Mar, California

RIPOFF REPORT VIP ARBITRATION

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION

Douglas J. Hauck, Complainant

v.

Anonymous, Author of Ripoff Report #575548

________________________________________________________________________

Complainant Douglas J. Hauck (the “Complainant”) has challenged the truthfulness of 3 specific statements (each, a “Statement”) posted by Author Anonymous (the “Author”) on the Ripoff Report website at www.ripoffreport.com on February 28, 2010, identified as Ripoff Report No. 575548 (the “Report”). The Author accused the Complainant of providing non-satisfactory dental services. The Complainant denies all allegations contained in the Report, contending that the Author is a competitor. The Author did not submit a response to the Complainant or any contact information. Therefore, in accordance with the Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Rules (the “Rules), the Author waived their right to participate in this Arbitration.

In accordance with the Rules, the Arbitrator was asked to decide whether the challenged Statements were an opinion or a fact. If, and only if, the Statement was determined to be a statement of fact, the Arbitrator was asked to further decide if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Statement was true or false. If the statement identified by the Complainant is determined to be an opinion, no determination will be made as to that particular Statement because an opinion cannot be determined to be true nor false.

The Arbitrator was further asked to decide whether the preponderance of the evidence submitted to establish if the identity of the Author of Ripoff Report No. 575548, shown as “annonymous” was a patient or a competitor.  Complainant essentially believes the Author who posted Ripoff Report No. 575548 is a competitor.  Although given all of the evidence in this case, the Arbitrator is unable to determine if the Author of Report No. 575548 is a patient or competitor.

In this case, the Arbitrator had only the evidence submitted by the Complainant to consider. The evidence submitted included a Witness Statement, Superior Court of California County of Orange search results, Dental Board of California search result for Dental License, and Patient Pictures.

Each Statement challenged by the Complainant has been considered, together with any Witness Statements and Documents provided by the Complainant for determination of the truth or falsity of the Statement.  The Author did not provide a response to the Complaint. 

The Arbitrator determined that the statements challenged in the Report were false. Therefore, according to the VIP Arbitration Rules, those statements have been redacted.

Decided July 12, 2013

Bruce E. Meyerson, Arbitrator

* A copy of the full Arbitrator’s Decision is available upon request.  Please e-mail arbitration@ripoffreport.com with the name of the Complainant and Report number.

In my opinion, he is a terrible dentist. ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)) and his office staff is like dogs on meat. The girls hounded me to do the work. I wish I had never done it. ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)). Do not go here!!! I was a bad experience. ((Statement REDACTED as false pursuant to Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration)). In my opinion, run away fast and do not let them sweet talk you into fixing anything in your mouth.