A cosmetic surgery patient has been ordered by an Arizona court to pay $12 million for defaming 2 local surgeons in public meetings and in online forums, including her own website, according to court records.

Those complaints, according to the surgeons' attorney, included accusations that the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based doctors were responsible for her serious skin infection, had altered her medical notes and weren't board certified physicians.

The patient, Sherry Ann Petta, underwent a number of procedures at Desert Palm Surgical Group, a Scottsdale-based surgery center operated by Albert E. Carlotti III, MD, DDS, and Michelle L. Cabret-Carlotti, MD, DDS. The procedures included rhinoplasty, skin resurfacing and other cosmetic treatments. From 2007 until the end of January 2008, the physicians provided ongoing treatment to Ms. Petta for a non-healing condition and a skin infection, according to court records. Ms. Petta later blamed the surgeons for the infection she had developed.

In 2008, Ms. Petta reportedly created a website where she posted comments questioning the doctors' credentials, and accused Desert Palm and the surgeons of harming her with a laser procedure. The Carlottis sued Ms. Petta for defamation within weeks of the website's appearance. At that time, a judge ordered Ms. Petta to immediately take down the website. She complied, but subsequently lodged complaints regarding the Carlottis' practice with the Arizona Medical Board and other state officials, and appeared at public medical board meetings to air her grievances. Ms. Petta also posted items about the Carlottis on various physician review websites.

The surgeons' suit asserted that Ms. Petta's "non-healing condition was caused by her receiving various treatments from other physicians and using unauthorized products," and that her internet postings contained false information that had damaged their business. A jury recently ruled unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs in the amounts of $11 million for actual damages and $1 million for punitive damages.

"I think the unanimous ruling made it clear that the jury didn't believe the defendant's story," says the Carlottis' attorney, Matthew J. Kelly. "From what the evidence demonstrated, many of [Ms. Petta's] statements - made not only on her website but to government and non-government third persons and in public meetings - were defamatory. And given confidentiality requirements, the surgeons felt constrained to respond to this former patient's accusations. From my clients' perspective, [a lawsuit] was the only forum they had to defend themselves."

Ms. Petta plans to appeal the ruling, according to her attorney, Derron D. Woodfork. "This case is about what we considered to be opinions about the quality of the doctors," he says. "I think the verdict was completely unjust. If anyone were to read [Ms. Petta's online comments], they would seem just like any other physician review you'd read, in our opinion. We just had doctors who decided to sue, and had a jury that agreed with them."

Mark McGraw