Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you for the credit of unused medication that was in foil packaging I accept and understand the liquid syringes cannot be returned or reused as stated in my last response When I filed my original concerns with the Revdex.com, there were three issues I chose this public route because manager [redacted] had obviously instructed her staff not to address my concerns with me or provide credit as requested (or further, to tell customers her "response" when she was in fact not on site) Following that failed attempt, a letter followed a phone call stating exactly the same thing The letter, on behalf of Pulaski Veterinary Clinic, denied any credit and maintained a balance was still due PVCs business/office management has chosen to only address one concern during each transactionhoping perhaps that if issues were ignored I might forget the concerns that prompted my requests in the first place (?) This individual issue denial was buried in minutiae and repetition of detail that was redundant and condescending This shows disregard for my years of loyal patronage to the PVC establishment and disregards concerns outlined very clearly I worked politely to allude to this in my earlier communications without success or understanding on behalf of the business/office management at PVC.Perhaps now PVC's administration can address my concern about the charge for a full euthanasia of my dog in the spring of 2015, when only a sedative given by a technician Ms [redacted] replied that euthanasia means "end of life" and that this was the irreversible result of the procedure Unnecessary definitions and and redundant statements of the obvious certainly do not foster goodwill or show good faith service The definition of this term was not disputed, only the reasoning that a veterinarian did not administer the second of the two injections generally required, and therefore didn't require the full cost reimbursement for services As explained in a previous reply, Ms [redacted] was not in the employ of PVC at the time of the death of my pet A euthanasia service (and logically it's cost) includes care by tech staff, office staff and veterinarian staff as well as medications/drugs used No veterinarian rendered services -- only a sedative was administered by a technician Upon research (as also earlier stated) some states require a vet to administer the final euthanasia drug WI has no specific listed requirement for this on the AVMA site, but since I was told the first injection was a sedative and the second injection would "put your dog to sleep" and would be administered by a veterinarian, it is likely that the sedative and the second injections are two medications Even if it is the same drug, the need for two injections was made clear by observation that the syringe containing the sedative was emptied by the technician Thus, the use and cost of the second medication/drug and the veterinarian's time/expertise were not employed I asked for the discrepancy between service and charge be examined and a portion of the euthanasia fee be credited This was ignored by PVC staff in the most recent response which addressed only the pain medication credit.I have been, and am still, VERY happy with the service to me and my pets provided by the staff, technicians, veterinarians and owners of PVC --- as I have been for over years through multiple pets and changing ownership and administration Current administration, however, has dragged out each and every concern rather than address them together as presented What this tells me is that the current management/supervisory employee for PVC has no priority or concern for customer service in a timely m***rHowever, stretching/dragging out this process may sometimes result in a client giving up concerns because it is inconvenient and/or time-consuming results in customer resignation of the issue/s For me and for multiple like-minded pet owners, this is unsatisfactory and does not show good faith or good community minded business to customers I know of two other clients who left PVC due to similar issues/a feeling of overcharges and poor business communication more than a year before I finally (after incidents that just didn't feel fair) stepped up and addressed them The result was this long, drawn out affair in which a public airing occurredUnfortunately for PVC, the only flaw in their otherwise well-run business is its business managers apparent lack of humanity awareness and ability to deal with customer concerns in a timely and fair-minded m***r While profit is important for any business, in a small work-of-mouth community like Pulaski, customer service should be paramount or at least equal to monetary gains [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] Regards, [redacted]
The client was asked if she preferred scalpel or laser for the neuter surgeries She had two felines neutered The client's preference was granted with the description of laser SCALPEL and $was charged $for each surgery We performed laser THERAPY on post surgical incisions, which helps speed up the healing time The client was charged $for the different surgeries performed $for each surgery The invoice is itemized to add value to our clients The $charge is included in our bundle, which is a cost savings to our clients Due to the misunderstanding of "laser SCALPEL" and "laser THERAPY" we will write off the $70.00.Client signed consent forms as well as discharge instructions outlining the medications being sent home with the client The clinic does not provide a medication if not needed for standard of care We do not accept prescriptions being returned as it is illegal to have any prescription returned.The client signed a consent form to euthanize their pet Euthanize means to end life The Dradministered one of the anesthetics and before injecting another anesthetic the pet died Not all pets need the same amount of injections No matter if one or two anesthetics were performed the outcome was to end the pet's life, which is what happened Do to the sensitivity of the visit, it is customary to request payment when a client arrives for their euthanasia appointment It is a very emotional appointment and this makes the visit less stressful for the client After the euthanasia procedure is performed, we allow the client to take as much time as they need in the room with the pet The client is then able to leave without encountering a staff member requesting payment Because the decision cannot be changed (no reversing the outcome), we ask for payment prior to the pet being euthanized The clinic also has posting that say "Payment is due when services are performed" and "Payment is due at time services are rendered.Thank you, [redacted]
Regarding the request for credit for medication.The Buprenorphine is a liquid prescription. The clinic receives the medication in a bottle and administers the individual syringes(similar to a pharmacist). Therefore, legally it is considered an open prescription and the individual syringes cannot be returned. We cannot use this product, so you are welcome to stop by the clinic and pick the remaining product up if you would like. If you do not pick it up by Nov15, we will dispose of it for you.The Onisor tablets are individually foiled and sealed. We will credit you for the amount not used. A total of tablets, for a credit of $15.00.We appreciate your past business.Thank you,*** ***
The client was asked if she preferred scalpel or laser for the neuter surgeries. She had two felines neutered. The client's preference was granted with the description of laser SCALPEL and $40 was charged. $20 for each surgery. We performed laser THERAPY on post surgical...
incisions, which helps speed up the healing time. The client was charged $30 for the 3 different surgeries performed. $10 for each surgery. The invoice is itemized to add value to our clients. The $10 charge is included in our bundle, which is a cost savings to our clients. Due to the misunderstanding of "laser SCALPEL" and "laser THERAPY" we will write off the $70.00.Client signed consent forms as well as discharge instructions outlining the medications being sent home with the client. The clinic does not provide a medication if not needed for standard of care. We do not accept prescriptions being returned as it is illegal to have any prescription returned.The client signed a consent form to euthanize their pet. Euthanize means to end life. The Dr. administered one of the anesthetics and before injecting another anesthetic the pet died. Not all pets need the same amount of injections. No matter if one or two anesthetics were performed the outcome was to end the pet's life, which is what happened. Do to the sensitivity of the visit, it is customary to request payment when a client arrives for their euthanasia appointment. It is a very emotional appointment and this makes the visit less stressful for the client. After the euthanasia procedure is performed, we allow the client to take as much time as they need in the room with the pet. The client is then able to leave without encountering a staff member requesting payment. Because the decision cannot be changed (no reversing the outcome), we ask for payment prior to the pet being euthanized. The clinic also has posting that say "Payment is due when services are performed" and "Payment is due at time services are rendered.Thank you,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you, PVC, for the credit of $70.00 regarding the lack of service explanations and subsequent charges regarding the neutering of my three (3) feline pets. I thankfully and gratefully accept this portion of my concern. NOTE: In the interest of accuracy, I had three (3) felines neutered, not two as recorded in PVCs response. Regarding the second issue, the euthanizing of my dog, PVC Ltd did not have a veterinary Dr. inject a euthanasia drug in the Spring of 2015 as stated in PVCs response. I understand well that putting a pet down is emotional and therefore the clinic wants their payment before the procedure, however, in my opinion, (as I expressed at the time) this should be a client decision and not a clinic one. I was not crying or outwardly distressed and would not have disrupted clinic atmosphere. I am also aware of the sign that requests payment upon services. I have been taking my pets to PVC for over 30 years and have ALWAYS paid my bills in accordance with clinic policy. This is not my concern. My concern is that while Ms. Molinski maintains a Dr./Vet administered the euthanasia drug, it was not. As explained by the technician, the first injection was a SEDATIVE, given by said TECHNICIAN. Further, Ms. [redacted] was not yet in the employ of PVC when this occurred. Again, to be clear, I was told the first injection was just a SEDATIVE. This sedative was administered by a technician, and no Dr./Vet services occurred. Surely the cost of putting down a pet includes service by a Dr./Vet. This is the case in most of the Greater Green Bay area vet clinics, and the law in most states. I was told after the technician gave the SEDATIVE, that the VET would come to administer the second injection as tech's were not allowed to perform this last step. While WI law has no recorded personnel requirements (licensed vets or trained personnel) as do most other states (see charted info on AMVA website), the technician told me the Dr. would be coming in to administer the drug that would put the dog to sleep. Many area veterinarians use two separate drugs, and if the tech was not allowed to administer the second injection, this would likely indicate a difference in drugs, if not clinic procedure. In either case, the entire procedure was not completed/needed.Charging a full amount for a partial procedure does not seem ethical, and at the very least does not show a good faith effort to provide client-retaining service, but instead, seems to focus on monies collected. In fairness, a percentage of the cost of the euthanasia procedure could be reimbursed/credited to my account.Regarding medications, I was told on previous visits that medications could be returned if they did not work/help or were not used ("just bring them back"). The law for veterinary medications applies only to opened medications and not for UNOPENED, UNUSED medications. The meds that were partially used therefore are not included, though the UNOPENED AND UNUSED ones I'd like refunded as shared with me by personnel on a previous visit regarding medications---see above. This would be the syringe-style medications given to me for just the one of the male cats.Thank you so much for your attention to these concerns. As a lifelong client, I appreciate your efforts, and am otherwise VERY happy with the staff, quality of care and general professionalism of the establishment. Pulaski is a small, mostly country-minded place and success and satisfaction are paramount for a local business. This is why I've stayed loyal to this establishment for decades. I'd like to be able to let others know that even while staffing may change at PVC, it is still fair, considerate and works to ensure that clients are treated as well as the pets they help to care for.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you for the credit of unused medication that was in foil packaging. I accept and understand the liquid syringes cannot be returned or reused as stated in my last response. When I filed my original concerns with the Revdex.com, there were three issues. I chose this public route because manager [redacted] had obviously instructed her staff not to address my concerns with me or provide credit as requested (or further, to tell customers her "response" when she was in fact not on site). Following that failed attempt, a letter followed a phone call stating exactly the same thing. The letter, on behalf of Pulaski Veterinary Clinic, denied any credit and maintained a balance was still due. PVCs business/office management has chosen to only address one concern during each transaction... hoping perhaps that if issues were ignored I might forget the concerns that prompted my requests in the first place (?). This individual issue denial was buried in minutiae and repetition of detail that was redundant and condescending. This shows disregard for my 30 years of loyal patronage to the PVC establishment and disregards concerns outlined very clearly. I worked politely to allude to this in my earlier communications without success or understanding on behalf of the business/office management at PVC.Perhaps now PVC's administration can address my concern about the charge for a full euthanasia of my dog in the spring of 2015, when only a sedative given by a technician. Ms. [redacted] replied that euthanasia means "end of life" and that this was the irreversible result of the procedure. Unnecessary definitions and and redundant statements of the obvious certainly do not foster goodwill or show good faith service. The definition of this term was not disputed, only the reasoning that a veterinarian did not administer the second of the two injections generally required, and therefore didn't require the full cost reimbursement for services. As explained in a previous reply, Ms. [redacted] was not in the employ of PVC at the time of the death of my pet. A euthanasia service (and logically it's cost) includes care by tech staff, office staff and veterinarian staff as well as medications/drugs used. No veterinarian rendered services -- only a sedative was administered by a technician. Upon research (as also earlier stated) some states require a vet to administer the final euthanasia drug. WI has no specific listed requirement for this on the AVMA site, but since I was told the first injection was a sedative and the second injection would "put your dog to sleep" and would be administered by a veterinarian, it is likely that the sedative and the second injections are two medications. Even if it is the same drug, the need for two injections was made clear by observation that the syringe containing the sedative was emptied by the technician. Thus, the use and cost of the second medication/drug and the veterinarian's time/expertise were not employed. I asked for the discrepancy between service and charge be examined and a portion of the euthanasia fee be credited. This was ignored by PVC staff in the most recent response which addressed only the pain medication credit.I have been, and am still, VERY happy with the service to me and my pets provided by the staff, technicians, veterinarians and owners of PVC --- as I have been for over 30 years through multiple pets and changing ownership and administration. Current administration, however, has dragged out each and every concern rather than address them together as presented. What this tells me is that the current management/supervisory employee for PVC has no priority or concern for customer service in a timely m[redacted]r. However, stretching/dragging out this process may sometimes result in a client giving up concerns because it is inconvenient and/or time-consuming results in customer resignation of the issue/s. For me and for multiple like-minded pet owners, this is unsatisfactory and does not show good faith or good community minded business to customers. I know of two other clients who left PVC due to similar issues/a feeling of overcharges and poor business communication more than a year before I finally (after 3 incidents that just didn't feel fair) stepped up and addressed them. The result was this long, drawn out affair in which a public airing occurred. Unfortunately for PVC, the only flaw in their otherwise well-run business is its business managers apparent lack of humanity awareness and ability to deal with customer concerns in a timely and fair-minded m[redacted]r. While profit is important for any business, in a small work-of-mouth community like Pulaski, customer service should be paramount or at least equal to monetary gains.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you for the credit of unused medication that was in foil packaging I accept and understand the liquid syringes cannot be returned or reused as stated in my last response When I filed my original concerns with the Revdex.com, there were three issues I chose this public route because manager [redacted] had obviously instructed her staff not to address my concerns with me or provide credit as requested (or further, to tell customers her "response" when she was in fact not on site) Following that failed attempt, a letter followed a phone call stating exactly the same thing The letter, on behalf of Pulaski Veterinary Clinic, denied any credit and maintained a balance was still due PVCs business/office management has chosen to only address one concern during each transactionhoping perhaps that if issues were ignored I might forget the concerns that prompted my requests in the first place (?) This individual issue denial was buried in minutiae and repetition of detail that was redundant and condescending This shows disregard for my years of loyal patronage to the PVC establishment and disregards concerns outlined very clearly I worked politely to allude to this in my earlier communications without success or understanding on behalf of the business/office management at PVC.Perhaps now PVC's administration can address my concern about the charge for a full euthanasia of my dog in the spring of 2015, when only a sedative given by a technician Ms [redacted] replied that euthanasia means "end of life" and that this was the irreversible result of the procedure Unnecessary definitions and and redundant statements of the obvious certainly do not foster goodwill or show good faith service The definition of this term was not disputed, only the reasoning that a veterinarian did not administer the second of the two injections generally required, and therefore didn't require the full cost reimbursement for services As explained in a previous reply, Ms [redacted] was not in the employ of PVC at the time of the death of my pet A euthanasia service (and logically it's cost) includes care by tech staff, office staff and veterinarian staff as well as medications/drugs used No veterinarian rendered services -- only a sedative was administered by a technician Upon research (as also earlier stated) some states require a vet to administer the final euthanasia drug WI has no specific listed requirement for this on the AVMA site, but since I was told the first injection was a sedative and the second injection would "put your dog to sleep" and would be administered by a veterinarian, it is likely that the sedative and the second injections are two medications Even if it is the same drug, the need for two injections was made clear by observation that the syringe containing the sedative was emptied by the technician Thus, the use and cost of the second medication/drug and the veterinarian's time/expertise were not employed I asked for the discrepancy between service and charge be examined and a portion of the euthanasia fee be credited This was ignored by PVC staff in the most recent response which addressed only the pain medication credit.I have been, and am still, VERY happy with the service to me and my pets provided by the staff, technicians, veterinarians and owners of PVC --- as I have been for over years through multiple pets and changing ownership and administration Current administration, however, has dragged out each and every concern rather than address them together as presented What this tells me is that the current management/supervisory employee for PVC has no priority or concern for customer service in a timely m***rHowever, stretching/dragging out this process may sometimes result in a client giving up concerns because it is inconvenient and/or time-consuming results in customer resignation of the issue/s For me and for multiple like-minded pet owners, this is unsatisfactory and does not show good faith or good community minded business to customers I know of two other clients who left PVC due to similar issues/a feeling of overcharges and poor business communication more than a year before I finally (after incidents that just didn't feel fair) stepped up and addressed them The result was this long, drawn out affair in which a public airing occurredUnfortunately for PVC, the only flaw in their otherwise well-run business is its business managers apparent lack of humanity awareness and ability to deal with customer concerns in a timely and fair-minded m***r While profit is important for any business, in a small work-of-mouth community like Pulaski, customer service should be paramount or at least equal to monetary gains [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] Regards, [redacted]
The client was asked if she preferred scalpel or laser for the neuter surgeries She had two felines neutered The client's preference was granted with the description of laser SCALPEL and $was charged $for each surgery We performed laser THERAPY on post surgical incisions, which helps speed up the healing time The client was charged $for the different surgeries performed $for each surgery The invoice is itemized to add value to our clients The $charge is included in our bundle, which is a cost savings to our clients Due to the misunderstanding of "laser SCALPEL" and "laser THERAPY" we will write off the $70.00.Client signed consent forms as well as discharge instructions outlining the medications being sent home with the client The clinic does not provide a medication if not needed for standard of care We do not accept prescriptions being returned as it is illegal to have any prescription returned.The client signed a consent form to euthanize their pet Euthanize means to end life The Dradministered one of the anesthetics and before injecting another anesthetic the pet died Not all pets need the same amount of injections No matter if one or two anesthetics were performed the outcome was to end the pet's life, which is what happened Do to the sensitivity of the visit, it is customary to request payment when a client arrives for their euthanasia appointment It is a very emotional appointment and this makes the visit less stressful for the client After the euthanasia procedure is performed, we allow the client to take as much time as they need in the room with the pet The client is then able to leave without encountering a staff member requesting payment Because the decision cannot be changed (no reversing the outcome), we ask for payment prior to the pet being euthanized The clinic also has posting that say "Payment is due when services are performed" and "Payment is due at time services are rendered.Thank you, [redacted]
Regarding the request for credit for medication.The Buprenorphine is a liquid prescription. The clinic receives the medication in a bottle and administers the individual syringes(similar to a pharmacist). Therefore, legally it is considered an open prescription and the individual syringes cannot be returned. We cannot use this product, so you are welcome to stop by the clinic and pick the remaining product up if you would like. If you do not pick it up by Nov15, we will dispose of it for you.The Onisor tablets are individually foiled and sealed. We will credit you for the amount not used. A total of tablets, for a credit of $15.00.We appreciate your past business.Thank you,*** ***
The client was asked if she preferred scalpel or laser for the neuter surgeries. She had two felines neutered. The client's preference was granted with the description of laser SCALPEL and $40 was charged. $20 for each surgery. We performed laser THERAPY on post surgical...
incisions, which helps speed up the healing time. The client was charged $30 for the 3 different surgeries performed. $10 for each surgery. The invoice is itemized to add value to our clients. The $10 charge is included in our bundle, which is a cost savings to our clients. Due to the misunderstanding of "laser SCALPEL" and "laser THERAPY" we will write off the $70.00.Client signed consent forms as well as discharge instructions outlining the medications being sent home with the client. The clinic does not provide a medication if not needed for standard of care. We do not accept prescriptions being returned as it is illegal to have any prescription returned.The client signed a consent form to euthanize their pet. Euthanize means to end life. The Dr. administered one of the anesthetics and before injecting another anesthetic the pet died. Not all pets need the same amount of injections. No matter if one or two anesthetics were performed the outcome was to end the pet's life, which is what happened. Do to the sensitivity of the visit, it is customary to request payment when a client arrives for their euthanasia appointment. It is a very emotional appointment and this makes the visit less stressful for the client. After the euthanasia procedure is performed, we allow the client to take as much time as they need in the room with the pet. The client is then able to leave without encountering a staff member requesting payment. Because the decision cannot be changed (no reversing the outcome), we ask for payment prior to the pet being euthanized. The clinic also has posting that say "Payment is due when services are performed" and "Payment is due at time services are rendered.Thank you,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you, PVC, for the credit of $70.00 regarding the lack of service explanations and subsequent charges regarding the neutering of my three (3) feline pets. I thankfully and gratefully accept this portion of my concern. NOTE: In the interest of accuracy, I had three (3) felines neutered, not two as recorded in PVCs response. Regarding the second issue, the euthanizing of my dog, PVC Ltd did not have a veterinary Dr. inject a euthanasia drug in the Spring of 2015 as stated in PVCs response. I understand well that putting a pet down is emotional and therefore the clinic wants their payment before the procedure, however, in my opinion, (as I expressed at the time) this should be a client decision and not a clinic one. I was not crying or outwardly distressed and would not have disrupted clinic atmosphere. I am also aware of the sign that requests payment upon services. I have been taking my pets to PVC for over 30 years and have ALWAYS paid my bills in accordance with clinic policy. This is not my concern. My concern is that while Ms. Molinski maintains a Dr./Vet administered the euthanasia drug, it was not. As explained by the technician, the first injection was a SEDATIVE, given by said TECHNICIAN. Further, Ms. [redacted] was not yet in the employ of PVC when this occurred. Again, to be clear, I was told the first injection was just a SEDATIVE. This sedative was administered by a technician, and no Dr./Vet services occurred. Surely the cost of putting down a pet includes service by a Dr./Vet. This is the case in most of the Greater Green Bay area vet clinics, and the law in most states. I was told after the technician gave the SEDATIVE, that the VET would come to administer the second injection as tech's were not allowed to perform this last step. While WI law has no recorded personnel requirements (licensed vets or trained personnel) as do most other states (see charted info on AMVA website), the technician told me the Dr. would be coming in to administer the drug that would put the dog to sleep. Many area veterinarians use two separate drugs, and if the tech was not allowed to administer the second injection, this would likely indicate a difference in drugs, if not clinic procedure. In either case, the entire procedure was not completed/needed.Charging a full amount for a partial procedure does not seem ethical, and at the very least does not show a good faith effort to provide client-retaining service, but instead, seems to focus on monies collected. In fairness, a percentage of the cost of the euthanasia procedure could be reimbursed/credited to my account.Regarding medications, I was told on previous visits that medications could be returned if they did not work/help or were not used ("just bring them back"). The law for veterinary medications applies only to opened medications and not for UNOPENED, UNUSED medications. The meds that were partially used therefore are not included, though the UNOPENED AND UNUSED ones I'd like refunded as shared with me by personnel on a previous visit regarding medications---see above. This would be the syringe-style medications given to me for just the one of the male cats.Thank you so much for your attention to these concerns. As a lifelong client, I appreciate your efforts, and am otherwise VERY happy with the staff, quality of care and general professionalism of the establishment. Pulaski is a small, mostly country-minded place and success and satisfaction are paramount for a local business. This is why I've stayed loyal to this establishment for decades. I'd like to be able to let others know that even while staffing may change at PVC, it is still fair, considerate and works to ensure that clients are treated as well as the pets they help to care for.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Thank you for the credit of unused medication that was in foil packaging. I accept and understand the liquid syringes cannot be returned or reused as stated in my last response. When I filed my original concerns with the Revdex.com, there were three issues. I chose this public route because manager [redacted] had obviously instructed her staff not to address my concerns with me or provide credit as requested (or further, to tell customers her "response" when she was in fact not on site). Following that failed attempt, a letter followed a phone call stating exactly the same thing. The letter, on behalf of Pulaski Veterinary Clinic, denied any credit and maintained a balance was still due. PVCs business/office management has chosen to only address one concern during each transaction... hoping perhaps that if issues were ignored I might forget the concerns that prompted my requests in the first place (?). This individual issue denial was buried in minutiae and repetition of detail that was redundant and condescending. This shows disregard for my 30 years of loyal patronage to the PVC establishment and disregards concerns outlined very clearly. I worked politely to allude to this in my earlier communications without success or understanding on behalf of the business/office management at PVC.Perhaps now PVC's administration can address my concern about the charge for a full euthanasia of my dog in the spring of 2015, when only a sedative given by a technician. Ms. [redacted] replied that euthanasia means "end of life" and that this was the irreversible result of the procedure. Unnecessary definitions and and redundant statements of the obvious certainly do not foster goodwill or show good faith service. The definition of this term was not disputed, only the reasoning that a veterinarian did not administer the second of the two injections generally required, and therefore didn't require the full cost reimbursement for services. As explained in a previous reply, Ms. [redacted] was not in the employ of PVC at the time of the death of my pet. A euthanasia service (and logically it's cost) includes care by tech staff, office staff and veterinarian staff as well as medications/drugs used. No veterinarian rendered services -- only a sedative was administered by a technician. Upon research (as also earlier stated) some states require a vet to administer the final euthanasia drug. WI has no specific listed requirement for this on the AVMA site, but since I was told the first injection was a sedative and the second injection would "put your dog to sleep" and would be administered by a veterinarian, it is likely that the sedative and the second injections are two medications. Even if it is the same drug, the need for two injections was made clear by observation that the syringe containing the sedative was emptied by the technician. Thus, the use and cost of the second medication/drug and the veterinarian's time/expertise were not employed. I asked for the discrepancy between service and charge be examined and a portion of the euthanasia fee be credited. This was ignored by PVC staff in the most recent response which addressed only the pain medication credit.I have been, and am still, VERY happy with the service to me and my pets provided by the staff, technicians, veterinarians and owners of PVC --- as I have been for over 30 years through multiple pets and changing ownership and administration. Current administration, however, has dragged out each and every concern rather than address them together as presented. What this tells me is that the current management/supervisory employee for PVC has no priority or concern for customer service in a timely m[redacted]r. However, stretching/dragging out this process may sometimes result in a client giving up concerns because it is inconvenient and/or time-consuming results in customer resignation of the issue/s. For me and for multiple like-minded pet owners, this is unsatisfactory and does not show good faith or good community minded business to customers. I know of two other clients who left PVC due to similar issues/a feeling of overcharges and poor business communication more than a year before I finally (after 3 incidents that just didn't feel fair) stepped up and addressed them. The result was this long, drawn out affair in which a public airing occurred. Unfortunately for PVC, the only flaw in their otherwise well-run business is its business managers apparent lack of humanity awareness and ability to deal with customer concerns in a timely and fair-minded m[redacted]r. While profit is important for any business, in a small work-of-mouth community like Pulaski, customer service should be paramount or at least equal to monetary gains.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]