Brighton - Eggert Animal Clinic, PC

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 I am attaching records from both Brighton Eggert Animal Clinic and [redacted] ***An attachment of the diagnosis from Brighton Eggert is included along with the vet's notes, DrVI also have attached notes from the eye DrIn her notes she says that this could have been caused by ingestion of a toxin (which we did it mention to BRighton Eggert because she started to act funny after a walkLiving in a college neighborhood it could have been very likely that she ingested something quickly)As you can see in the eye doctor's notes this was mentioned as a possiblity to what may have caused vision loss, if she ever was truly blindThe eye Dralso it may have been a seizureMy question is, "if this was any of these things why were they not mentioned to us first off?" I also am going to list errors made that I witnessed and writtten in vet's notes after speaking with specialistI also want to make it clear that none of these errors listed would have changed if she was truly blind days prior: Vet: PLRs are present but very slow and do not constrictEye dr.: only accurate if done in darkI was in room and lights were never off at Brighton Eggert Eye dr states inside and back of eye perfectVet: retina hyperflectiveEye drVet: lenses have refractile round rims within them (see atttached) Eye dr.: born with a pulverulent cataracts that are non-progressive, non vision threatening form of cataract) In vet's notes, when taken next day,10/6, she still put it could be SARDs or "something else"I cannot believe that a liscensed vet does not recognize that SARDs is not reversible and sudden blindness occurs None of these changes of diagnosis were true Due to this misminformation,misdiagnosis, inaccurate exam, I never would have paid for more out of pocket expenses and paid for an office visit to the opthamalogist which was $ I would like to be reimbursed for this visit.What also concerns me she was given a sedativeWhat if this was another medical condition since it was not SARDs? This could have affected her negativelyShe was also sent home with sedatives, [redacted] , which we never used bc her sight "suddenly" returnedI would like to be reimbursed for both sedatives given in house ans sent home for a total of $since given based on a SARDs diagnosisEye dr believes as written in notes that "if she truly had dilated,non-responsive pupils and absent menace it may suggest small seizure"This specialist stressed to me, and by using the word "truly" that she would have seen many things different especially since so many errors were madeI still believe that my dog was never blindShe walked out of vet on 10/5, jumped down curb and ran to grassy areaWhen we got to grass area she jumped up,a curb and walked along the curb A blind dog could never do thisShe also didnt walk into any doors or walls etc at the vets officeDrVmade numerous errors and misdiagnosed my dogMy wife and I went through emotional traumaWe had to have friends and family stay with us we were so distraughtI missed a day's work of pay to stay with my supposedly "SARDs, blind dog The suffering we had gone through cannot even have a price tag on itI would like a full refund based on facts listed above and DrV.'s negligence Regards, [redacted]

Ms. [redacted]We are very sorry for your loss and we are so sorry that you felt this way about your visit.  We always strive for customer service excellence.  Unfortunately that was Niko's Paw print. It had a crack in it before mailing but we put it in bubble wrap in hopes nothing more...

would happen to it.  Our sincere apologies. In regards to your refund, your account is not showing a credit due...can you please explain so that we can better assist you. Thank you

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.
I am attaching records from both Brighton Eggert Animal Clinic and [redacted]. An attachment of the diagnosis from Brighton Eggert is included along with the vet's notes, Dr. V. I also have attached notes from the eye Dr. In her notes she says that this could have been caused by ingestion of a toxin (which we did it mention to BRighton Eggert because she started to act funny after a walk. Living in a college neighborhood it could have been very likely that she ingested something quickly). As you can see in the eye doctor's notes this was mentioned as a possiblity to what may have caused vision loss, if she ever was truly blind. The eye Dr. also it may have been a seizure. My question is, "if this was any of these things why were they not mentioned to us first off?" I also am going to list errors made that I witnessed and writtten in vet's notes after speaking with specialist. I also want to make it clear that none of these errors listed would have changed if she was truly blind 2 days prior: 1. Vet: PLRs are present but very slow and do not constrict. Eye dr.: only accurate if done in dark. I was in room and lights were never off at Brighton Eggert.  Eye dr states inside and back of eye perfect. 2. Vet: retina hyperflective. Eye dr. Normal 3. Vet: lenses have refractile round rims within them (see atttached) Eye dr.: born with a pulverulent cataracts that are non-progressive, non vision threatening form of cataract) 4. In vet's notes, when taken next day,10/6, she still put it could be SARDs or "something else". I cannot believe that a liscensed vet does not recognize that SARDs is not reversible and sudden blindness occurs.  None of these changes of diagnosis were true.  Due to this misminformation,misdiagnosis, inaccurate exam, I never would have paid for more out of pocket expenses and paid for an office visit to the opthamalogist which was $112.  I would like to be reimbursed for this visit.What also concerns me she was given a sedative. What if this was another medical condition since it was not SARDs? This could have affected her negatively. She was also sent home with sedatives, [redacted], which we never used bc her sight "suddenly" returned. I would like to be reimbursed for both sedatives given in house ans sent home for a total of $45 since given based on a SARDs diagnosis. Eye dr believes as written in notes that "if she truly had dilated,non-responsive pupils and absent menace it may suggest small seizure". This specialist stressed to me, and by using the word "truly" that she would have seen many things different especially since so many errors were made. I still believe that my dog was never blind. She walked out of vet on 10/5, jumped down curb and ran to grassy area. When we got to grass area she jumped up,a curb and walked along the curb.  A blind dog could never do this. She also didnt walk into any doors or walls etc at the vets office. Dr. V. made numerous errors and misdiagnosed my dog. My wife and I went through emotional trauma. We had to have friends and family stay with us we were so distraught. I missed a day's work of pay to stay with my supposedly "SARDs, blind dog.  The suffering we had gone through cannot even have a price tag on it. I would like a full refund based on facts listed above and Dr. V.'s negligence.
Regards,
[redacted]

When
[redacted] presented on an emergency basis she was thoroughly examined by our
veterinarian and determined to be blind, both of her pupils were maximally
dilated, there were no pupillary light responses (PLRs) present in either eye,
and there was no menace response. She then had basic...

diagnostic tests run
including a full blood panel (to look for any internal organ dysfunction as a
cause), intraocular pressures (to rule out glaucoma as a cause of acute
blindness), and a blood pressure taken (to see if there was systemic
hypertension, which would also be a cause for acute blindness or retinal
detachment). 
Based
on the normal/negative test results from the diagnostic tests run- ruling out
glaucoma, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and liver disease, breed, age
and sex of the dog, the most likely diagnosis of Sudden Acquired Retinal
Degeneration (SARDs) was proposed. In addition to this most likely diagnosis,
there were several other differential diagnoses (DDx) given to the owners and
noted in the medical record as possibilities,  but to be confirmed/ruled out these diseases required
further diagnostic testing that could only be performed by an Ophthalmologist.
It was strongly recommended that the owner seek the opinion of the
ophthalmologist the next morning, the owners declined and decided to wait.
The
diagnostic tests which were performed on [redacted] for which the owner is
requesting refund of her money were all necessary to rule out the most common
causes of her illness/presenting complaint.