ComplaintsforLaurel Road Veterinary Clinic

• Initial Complaint

  09/20/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Date of transaction: 9-12-22 Amount paid: $77.96 What the business committed to provide: New patient exam in order to schedule spay.Nature of dispute: Patient (canine Tidy) had clear skin upon arrival to the clinic waiting room and that's why she was ready for spay. She developed rash while in the clinic and/or being examined for pre-spay purpose. The exam room was not brightly lit and so I was confused why the veterinarian (vet) was talking about rashes that needed a new prescription. I assumed he saw something minor I missed, but upon going home I noticed she had a new reddish skin break-out. I informed the clinic and they denied that **** could have a skin irritation by being in their clinic (where sick animals congregated in small spaces) which I find irresponsible and cowardly of them not to admit it's possible ****'s rashes could have developed in their clinic environment and I was told to go somewhere else. They should have admitted it was possible for Tidy to be exposed to an irritant at their clinic and they would sanitize her operating room for spay, but instead, told me to go somewhere else. Tidy's skin condition worsened when given the prescribed med for five days, so I discontinued the med and tried black tea with aspirin on the skin instead and noticed a quick recovery. Since I paid for an exam on the basis **** would be provided reasonable spay care thereafter and now they refuse (before I sent more emails showing my frustration), they should refund the exam fee as well as the cost of meds that did more harm than good. The business has not tried to resolve the problem as they refuse to respond.Account: ****, invoice: *****

  Business response

  09/22/2022

  Hello,

  ****************** came to our clinic on September 12, 2022 (the date in question). I am attaching several documents including patient records from that day's visit where an examination was performed (Examination), a test was run to confirm infection at the time of the visit (cytology) and for medications prescribed to treat infection (Doxycycline). All of these items can also be found on ********************** receipt that he presented to the BBB. Since all of these tasks were completed, there is no merit to refunding his money. I am also attaching documents from his previous vet (************ Veterinary Clinic) where he accused them of giving his pet and infection (********, noted on 08-24-22) where the doctor at the clinic also explained that Mastitis is not contagious. Please see remainder of documents where our doctor ********* back and forth with client from September 16th through the 19th where we also explained similar circumstances regarding the diagnosed skin infection found on September 12th.

  Please let us know that this has been received and that all 5 attached documents have been seen and reviewed and what our next step needs to be.

  Thank you

  Customer response

  09/22/2022

   
  Complaint: 18047880
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  This is not about whether or not there was an infection, that is ancillary information, it is about how the doctor refuses to do business again, thus causing me to waste my time and money bringing my service dog there. It is malpractice and not reasonable for the doctor to refuse to do business because I stated my service dog came in their office with a clear belly and came out with rashes. The appropriate response of the doctor would be to say that they will take extra Care during this pay to prevent infection. But instead they refused to do business and thus nullifies the legitimacy of charging me for a pre-spay examination. In other words I got charged for a pre-spay examination under the condition that she will be spayed there and now they refuse to spay. That was their choice, not mine.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

  Business response

  09/23/2022

  ***************** presented his dog on September 12, 2022 for an exam in order to schedule her for a spay. Upon examining the dog, the attending veterinarian noticed several  lesions on the dogs body, showed them to the owner and recommended testing to determine the best treatment. The owner consented, the samples were collected, and the appropriate antibiotic was dispensed.
  The claim that the dog developed a skin infection while sitting in our hospital is false. ***************** received an in depth explanation as to the etiology of the skin infections that his dog was diagnosed with. He was educated about underlying allergies , the skin barrier, and the nature of staph infections in dogs and how it would not be possible for the dog to have contracted this type of infection while sitting in our exam room.  His dog was diagnosed and treated appropriately.
  Furthermore upon reviewing his medical records , it appears ***************** is in the habit of accusing all the previous veterinary clinics he has taken his dog to as being the culprit of his dogs skin infections .  He refuses to accept or understand the medical explanation that not only our clinic provided him ,but the previous clinics provided him as well.
  It appears he is a habitual seeker of veterinary care and then after his appointments accuses the veterinary clinics of causing his dogs medical problems and then requests his money back or threatens to file complaints. 
  Due to his his contentious history we opted not to provide him further veterinary care and provided him a list of alternative veterinary clinics that provide mobile and emergency services in our area .
  Please refer to  copies of his medical records and the communications submitted in initial response on 09-22-22

  Customer response

  09/25/2022

   
  Complaint: 18047880
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The antibiotic was dispensed did more harm than good and thus was not the "appropriate" antibiotic. The claim the dog developed a skin irritation or infection while visiting their clinic is true: Client and dog showed up for appointment on time when dog had clear skin. Clinic was tardy, making dog sit in waiting room where other sick animals had congregated previously and likely was not sanitized. One previous vet clinic wrote an incomplete and biased report. That clinic committed malpractice by ignoring a mastitis during examination when the dog should have been given and antibiotic immediately . They didn't put that in their record. They are biased and may have omitted truths to avoid malpractice insurance claim evidence against them. The list of two vet clinics provided do not accept new patients. I have never stated with absolute certainty any clinic is responsible for the dog's skin rashes upon sitting in their waiting room a long time upon arriving on time, but rather it is suspicious and likely. It's insane and irresponsible, deliberate malpractice for any doctor to claim it's not possible for a healthy animal to catch a skin irritant or be aggravated by related allergens within their clinic where many other sick animals have congregated and where the floors and tables are not sanitized after every sick animal visit. I made a reasonable interjection that my dog came in with clear skin and out with worsened skin: It's a responsible duty for service dog owner to inform the vet that happened, but the vet's ego got hurt and they will not accept responsibly that their clinic could have done more harm than good. Their cop out is to tell me to go somewhere else, but yet steal my money that is paid in exchange for future spay and the allowance to express any concerns for the dog's ****** concern of which this clinic doesn't allow; therefore they are in violation of their code of ethics and are the guilty party here. 

  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩