Central Oregon Audiology

Subject: complaint # [redacted] To the Revdex.com regarding the above complaint:Central Oregon Audiology did not respond because they have no defense They did the wrong thing to take a page of my contract which by law I should have from them It is no surprise to me that they did not respond The way they do business is not to deal with issues They are not concerned with making right what they did wrong Please do post my information so that potential patients can be forewarned [redacted] ***Bend, Oregon

My rebuttal to ID# [redacted] Date: 3/07/ Issues I dispute from MsV [redacted] ’s rebuttal: “A mistake was made by both the manufacturer and myself ”(sentence 1): Oticon denies any culpability Product ordered was provided Mistake was MsV [redacted] ’s alone Even if Oticon had made a mistake, the responsibility for errors falls by law to the clinic and dispenser there Re verification of whose error, contact Oticon Customer service, for serial nos(R) and (L) 21965998, contract dated 4/25/ “There is no visible difference between these two instruments ” (sentence 2): Different names are on inside margin in tiny print But important is not LOOK but each hearing aid has a unique serial # showing ownership of it; technology is different between Oticon Alta and Oticon Alta Pro ; and the are different model typesResponsibility to authenticate product required by clinic/staff solely I have no issue with the replacement aids EXTORTION IS ISSUE MV [redacted] required that I give back the original hearing aids before I would get the warranty on replaced aids Verify with Oticon at number listed above regarding who has right to first (wrong) pair of hearing aidsBy law, warranty is required at purchase The replaced aids had a new warranty MsV [redacted] should have given the warranty to me without requiring I give back the old hearing aids What she did, withholding the new warranty, was a violation of ethics Industry standard is that when a consequential error is made, the victim has the option/choice as to disposition of the (previous) product I could use the aids myself as backup if something happens to the new ones I received the warranty by asking my new audiology clinic to get it for me from C.OAudiology “ .her hearing aid warranty had already expired when she began to complain.” (Last sentence of 3rd paragraph.) There is no warranty period on extortion It’s wrong at any time I have no problem with the new aids, warranty, or upgrade, as MsV [redacted] says I do have a problem with her not giving me the new warranty until I gave back the first hearing aids “Sticky note” comment (Last paragraph, 1st sentence): I have no idea to what she refersJackie C***, staff personnel, took a legal-sized contract page of a document from me under pretenses, saying she was “just trying to help” and would not return it to me That is theft It is preposterous that MsV [redacted] states in her rebuttal that I may have “misplaced” it! (Last paragraph, 2nd sentence) When I filed a complaint against MsC [redacted] about this issue with the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Audiology, I cited many Oregon statutes she violated on October 5, 2016: According to Oregon Statutes, Division 5, Professional and Ethical Standards (335-005-0010), under DefinitionsI cite here: section (e) Any act of theft, dishonesty or misrepresentation involving a client, another practitioner, third party providers, or a government agency She misrepresented that she would give document back; she lied about helping me Also Statement to Prospective Hearing Aid Consumer; Contents; Copy Retained: Section lists what a contract must include (name, address, date, terms of contract, etc); Section (2), word for word, reads as follows: A duplicate copy of the statement required under subsection (1) of this section is a clinical record and as such must be kept for seven years by the audiologist selling the hearing aidMsC [redacted] took pages and of my contract on behalf of her employer, but by law, the clinic must have complete records for years They could make a copy I left this clinic due to poor treatment and care My final advice is heartfelt: BUYER BEWARE

The following is a response to the complaint which was submitted to you on February 7th of 2017, ID number [redacted] :A mistake was made by both the manufacturer and myself in that neither party noticed that the incorrect instrument was suppliedThe instrument that was intended for the client was the Oticon Alta Pro, but the client received the Oticon Alta in April There is no visible difference between these two instruments, they are programmed similarly, and there are no differences in the software when programming these instruments so the error went unnoticedThe price of these technologies is the same in our clinicWhen this unfortunate mistake was pointed out to us by our client in October 2016, we immediately discussed the situation with the factory and did not merely replace the client’s instruments with the technology she originally thought she purchased but upgraded it to the most recent generation of technology (Oticon Alta Pro Ti) which included tinnitus therapy capabilities that were not available when she purchased the original setThis upgrade included an additional three-year warranty for both replacement and repairOur clinic has gone above and beyond to make it right for this clientShe stated that she was extremely satisfied with the new technology, warranties, and upgradesShe got far more than she paid for, especially since her hearing aid warranty had already expired when she began to complain.Her primary issue seems to be with “a second page” which was, in actuality, a sticky note that I had written out for her in August to explain the remaining warranty (after she had lost her hearing aid and I replaced it for her)At the time this sticky note was misplaced in October 2016, (whether by the client or a front office person) the client’s warranty had been expired for five monthsI would also like to point out that the warranty information was additionally contained the purchase agreement that the client has in her possessionThe complaint is that she would like her sticky note backI offered to write her a new one.Thank you,Marya V [redacted]

The following is a response to the complaint which was submitted to you on February 7th of 2017, ID number [redacted]:A mistake was made by both the manufacturer and myself in that neither party noticed that the incorrect instrument was supplied. The instrument that was intended for the client was the...

Oticon Alta Pro, but the client received the Oticon Alta in April 2013. There is no visible difference between these two instruments, they are programmed similarly, and there are no differences in the software when programming these instruments so the error went unnoticed. The price of these technologies is the same in our clinic. When this unfortunate mistake was pointed out to us by our client in October 2016, we immediately discussed the situation with the factory and did not merely replace the client’s instruments with the technology she originally thought she purchased but upgraded it to the most recent generation of technology (Oticon Alta 2 Pro Ti) which included tinnitus therapy capabilities that were not available when she purchased the original set. This upgrade included an additional three-year warranty for both replacement and repair. Our clinic has gone above and beyond to make it right for this client. She stated that she was extremely satisfied with the new technology, warranties, and upgrades. She got far more than she paid for, especially since her hearing aid warranty had already expired when she began to complain.Her primary issue seems to be with “a second page” which was, in actuality, a sticky note that I had written out for her in August 2013 to explain the remaining warranty (after she had lost her hearing aid and I replaced it for her). At the time this sticky note was misplaced in October 2016, (whether by the client or a front office person) the client’s warranty had been expired for five months. I would also like to point out that the warranty information was additionally contained the purchase agreement that the client has in her possession. The complaint is that she would like her sticky note back. I offered to write her a new one.Thank you,Marya V[redacted]

My rebuttal to ID#[redacted]  Date:  3/07/2017             Issues I dispute from Ms. V[redacted]’s rebuttal: 1.     “A mistake was made by both the manufacturer and myself …”(sentence 1):  Oticon denies any culpability.  Product ordered was provided.  Mistake was Ms. V[redacted]’s alone.  Even if Oticon had made a mistake, the responsibility for errors falls by law to the clinic and dispenser there.  Re verification of whose error, contact Oticon Customer service, 800 526 3921 for serial nos. (R) 21966026 and (L) 21965998, contract dated 4/25/13.  2.     “There is no visible difference between these two instruments…” (sentence 2): Different names are on inside margin in tiny print.  But important is not LOOK but each hearing aid has a unique serial # showing ownership of it; technology is different between Oticon Alta and Oticon Alta Pro ; and the 2 are different model types. Responsibility to authenticate product required by clinic/staff solely. 3.     I have no issue with the replacement aids.  EXTORTION IS ISSUE.  M. V[redacted] required that I give back the original hearing aids before I would get the warranty on replaced aids.  Verify with Oticon at number listed above regarding who has right to first (wrong) pair of hearing aids. By law, warranty is required at purchase.  The replaced aids had a new warranty.  Ms. V[redacted] should have given the warranty to me without requiring I give back the old hearing aids.  What she did, withholding the new warranty, was a violation of ethics.  Industry standard is that when a consequential error is made, the victim has the option/choice as to disposition of the (previous) product.  I could use the aids myself as backup if something happens to the new ones.  I received the warranty by asking my new audiology clinic to get it for me from C.O. Audiology. 4.     “….her hearing aid warranty had already expired when she began to complain.” (Last sentence of 3rd paragraph.)  There is no warranty period on extortion.  It’s wrong at any time.  I have no problem with the new aids, warranty, or upgrade, as Ms. V[redacted] says.  I do have a problem with her not giving me the new warranty until I gave back the first hearing aids.  “Sticky note” comment (Last paragraph, 1st sentence): I have no idea to what she refers. Jackie C[redacted], staff personnel, took a legal-sized contract page of a document from me under false pretenses, saying she was “just trying to help” and would not return it to me.  That is theft.  It is preposterous that Ms. V[redacted] states in her rebuttal that I may have “misplaced” it!  (Last paragraph, 2nd sentence).  When I filed a complaint against Ms. C[redacted] about this issue with the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Audiology, I cited many Oregon statutes she violated on October 5, 2016:  According to Oregon Statutes, Division 5, Professional and Ethical Standards (335-005-0010), under Definitions. I cite 2 here: section (e) Any act of theft, dishonesty or misrepresentation involving a client, another practitioner, third party providers, or a government agency.  She misrepresented that she would give document back; she lied about helping me.  Also Statement to Prospective Hearing Aid Consumer; Contents; Copy Retained: Section 1 lists what a contract must include (name, address, date, terms of contract, etc); Section (2), word for word, reads as follows: A duplicate copy of the statement required under subsection (1) of this section is a clinical record and as such must be kept for seven years by the audiologist selling the hearing aid. Ms. C[redacted] took pages 3 and 4 of my contract on behalf of her employer, but by law, the clinic must have complete records for 7 years.  They could make a copy.  I left this clinic due to poor treatment and care.  My final advice is heartfelt: BUYER BEWARE.

Subject: complaint #[redacted]To the Revdex.com regarding the above complaint:Central Oregon Audiology did not respond because they have no defense.  They did the wrong thing to take a page of my contract which by law I should have from them.  It is no surprise to me that they did not respond.  The way they do business is not to deal with issues.  They are not concerned with making right what they did wrong.  Please do post my information so that potential patients can be forewarned.   [redacted]Bend, Oregon