Central Virginia Chiropratic Center Inc.

Review: I visited CVCC on 16 April 2013 after experiencing acute neck pain. The office originally scheduled a next-day follow up, which I declined the following morning for financial reasons and distrust of the competency of the clinic due to reasons not related to this complaint. My terms of payment were "as able, when able", agreed to at the time of service. I was told that no immediate payment was necessary, although I voluntarily paid $100 at the time of treatment. On 13 May 2013, my then fiance (now wife) received an "urgent" phone call from the clinic, for a situation they aggressively declared was an "emergency" regarding patient [redacted], and they needed me to contact them immediately. The only way that Central VA Chiropractic Clinic has my wife's contact information is from the emergency contact I provided at the time of treatment - which was not provided as a bill collections number, and bill collections are certainly not a medical emergency. This is issue 1 and 2: 1) Scare tactics directed at my family (terminology: "Emergency") 2) Contacting my family prior to using the legitimate contact information I had provided to reach me (i.e. phone) I promptly returned the call, and was informed there was a "billing issue", and was transferred to "[redacted]". "[redacted]" informed me that full payment was due when treatment was stopped, and demanded an immediate payment in the amount of $325. When I informed [redacted] that I was unable to pay in full at this time, I was informed that CVCC was sending my bill to collections. I then requested details of previous contact attempts, which [redacted] could not provide. When pressed, she claimed to have called my primary phone number earlier that morning prior to attempting the emergency contact. It should be noted that my phone is on 24/7, and I was communicating with her from that line. There is no reason to believe that there was a system malfunction. [redacted] then informed me that file would be given to a doctor to "decide what to do." I requested to speak with the doctor handling the file, which [redacted] agreed to, but then transferred me to "[redacted]", the front desk clerk. [redacted] claimed to have just had a conversation with [redacted] regarding the case, and offered to establish a payment plan (contrary to [redacted]s assertions that payment must be received immediately in full.) When I informed [redacted] that I was unable to make any payment at the current time, she informed me that an additional fee would be added to cover "the warrant for them to come collect it from you". This brings forth issue 3: 3: Intimidation and insinuation of law enforcement involvement ("Warrant") [redacted] and [redacted] both claimed to have attempted to contact me via phone, and claimed to have left voicemail messages. While [redacted] was unable to produce my phone number (despite supposedly viewing my file), [redacted] was able to present my correct number when asked. This presents issue 4: 4: Lying to patient regarding contact attempts Central Virginia Chiropractic Clinic Inc is not conducting business in an ethical or professional manner. Whether from a lack of training, willful effort to upset, or an incompetence in their positions, the clerks "[redacted]" and "[redacted]" are violating reasonable expectations for bill collection. Intimidation, negligence of proper communication channels, deceit, and unprofessional behavior mark this clinic with distinction. Several of these issues would fall under the Fair Debt Collections Act if the office were a third party collections agency. Using their exemption from that title to verbally abuse patients and their families is no way for a business with Revdex.com A+ rating to conduct themselves.

Consumer

Response:

Ms. [redacted],Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please update the desired outcome to "Explanation from Business". If there are any additional questions don't hesitate to contact me.[redacted]

Business

Response:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint.Mr. [redacted] was sent a statement (enclosed) dated 5/2/13 which stated since he had stopped care his balance was due immediately per the contract he signed (enclosed), and to please call the office within 7 days (5/13/13).Also enclosed is a signed statement from my front desk assistant, [redacted], who states Mr. [redacted] was very abusive to her regarding payment on his account, and no payment had been made since 4/16/13, nor would he agree to make any payment. On 5/13/13, it is documented in his file that he talked with [redacted] and told her that he refused to make payment and hung up on her. When [redacted] called Mr. [redacted]'s finance, she did state to his fiancé/wife that it was an "emergency" because [redacted] did not want to pursue any further collection procedures which would cost him additional money, and would hurt his credit.Once Mr. [redacted]'s fiancé/wife delivered the message to him, Mr. [redacted] called the office and then agreed to the payment plan of $50. per month. The office would have been very happy to accommodate Mr. [redacted] with this plan initially.I hope this letter answers all your concerns. If not, please call me directly at this number ###-###-####.Mark C. MillerownerI spoke with Mr. [redacted] several times about his account balance and payments. ln every conversation wehad I was cursed at as well as talked to very unprofessional. Mr. [redacted] spoke with [redacted] about hisaccount and the way that his office visit was handle to which I was not present. She then transferredhim to me, when I spoke with him he refused to make any payment on his account and stated that hewould be checking the laws because he was certain that our office was treating him unfairly and outcharges were illegal. Mr. [redacted] then called back at a later date to which we talked about his accountagain and the fact that he was being charged for the court cost. He then proceeded to tell be that thatwas [redacted] and that he was not paying anything. I then replied to him that he was present for all theprocedures that were done when he was In the office to none of which he refused at the time of service.I then stated that he had signed the init¡al check in paper work that stated if he ended his care with ouroffice that he would be responsible for all charges accumulated in full. I then told Mr. [redacted] that wewere more than willing to set him up on a payment plan and that I understood his frustrations but wewould be willing to work with him. I then suggested a payment plan and explained to him that he wouldstill be responsible for the court cost but that if he would agree to the payment plan and abide by theagreement that there would be no further court actions taken to which he agreed. Mr. [redacted] agreed to apayment plan of 550.00 on the first of the month if we would send him a written statement stating theabove information to which I agreed. He made a 550.00 payment at the end of our conversation andthen thanked me for working with him on the payment plan and that he greatly appreciated my time.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. The details of inadequacy of the businesses response is detailed below: The response provided by CVCC (attached) is inaccurate and largely ignores my original complaints. The inaccuracies include several contradictions, and either gross miscommunications between the staff and Mr. Miller, or additional falsehoods which need to be addressed at this time. The first issue is that of contacting my emergency contact number (my then fiancee) prior to contacting me. Unlike in Mr. Miller's account, I had not been contacted by phone prior to the incident in which “[redacted]” or “[redacted]” (both spellings are used by Mr. Miller) called my fiancee's number. The only preceding contact attempts had been by mail – however I had been out of town at that point for almost three weeks. I travel frequently and thus a mobile number is most reliable for reaching me. The motive for ignoring my phone number and going to the extreme measure of calling my emergency contact less than 30 days after the date of service, when $100.00 had been paid on the account, must be accounted for. I provided CVCC with my mobile number, but was not contacted on it. My fiancee's contact number was provided for emergency use. I would refer Mr. Miller to a reasonable definition of emergency as found in Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2006: “A patient's condition requiring immediate treatment.” Abuse of the emergency contact number and use of the term emergency, which reasonably incited nervousness into my fiancee, are unacceptable. For this issue Mr. Miller's response is inadequate. Mr. Miller has also failed to answer for his employees behavior - “[redacted]” was rude and aggressive on the phone with my fiancee without cause. For this I demand an answer. When I called CVCC to find out what the “emergency” was, “[redacted]” was rude and aggressive towards me, and demanded immediate payment in full. I was unable to pay immediately in full, and repeatedly informed her that I intended to pay according to our original agreement, “As able, when able”. Mr. Miller claims that a payment plan would have been accepted at this time, but once again has failed to answer for his employees behavior or claim that no payment plan was acceptable. [redacted] was extremely combative and unprofessional on the phone, raising her voice to me and treating me more as an enemy than a patient or client – and this did set the tone for the rest of the call. Next, I would like to set the record straight regarding my conversations with Ms. [redacted]. At no time did I “curse at” Ms. [redacted]. There were three situations I labeled as “[redacted]” - the first was the claim that there were voice mails left for me on my mobile number, and the second was that my “diagnoses” could not be released to me (the patient) because it would violate HIPAA policy, and the third was the claim that there were records of phone calls with me prior to the call to my fiancee. I stand by my labeling of all of these claims as BS. I did not engage in name calling or treat Ms. [redacted] with “abuse”. I matched the tone set by the CVCC office – and if this is taken to be abusive, I would like to suggest that Mr. Miller inspects his own office before claiming that I have been “very abusive.” Mr. Miller's claim that I hung up on “[redacted]” directly contradicts Ms. [redacted]s account that I had been transferred to her by “[redacted]”. In fact I was transferred, and ended the call by informing Ms. [redacted] that I was not prepared to make an immediate payment and was not in a state to hold a reasonable conversation given the manner in which the CVCC office had just treated me. At this point Ms. [redacted] said “Goodbye”, and I ended the call. The inaccuracy in Mr. Miller's account demands an explanation, and for claiming that I hung up on “[redacted]” he owes an apology. The second call to the office occurred July 1. I first contacted the court and confirmed my suspicion that no determination had been given, as nobody was at my residence to receive the summons. Given that I am overseas for an extended period of time, this was no surprise. I called CVCC and spoke to Ms. [redacted] to try and resolve the situation, at which time she claimed that I had lied about my address and claimed that the court had “determined” I had to pay in full. The claim that I had lied is absurd and I demand an apology. I provided my true address. The claim that the court had determined that I owed anything is also a lie – there was no judgment entered. Misrepresenting court proceedings is an unprofessional, unethical, and absolutely unacceptable practice. For this Mr. Miller owes an answer. In this same call I also addressed several other grievances. One was that I was being charged for two obstructed X-Rays. The other was that I was at a loss of why the office expected “continuing treatment” when the only papers I had been given said “No Diagnoses Given.” Ms. [redacted] refused to give me the diagnoses, but claimed that there was one in their records and HIPAA policy prevented her from disclosing it by mail or by phone, the only way I could receive the diagnoses was in person. Clearly this is a gross misunderstanding of HIPAA. I would refer Mr. Miller to Title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 164.502 (a)(1) (Permitted Uses and Disclosures) which states: “A Covered Entity is permitted to use or disclose protected health information as follows: (i) To the Individual (ii) For treatment, payment, or health care operations, as permitted by and in compliance with § 164.506 ...” There are no restrictions on how the covered entity may disclose this information to the individual concerned. As an individual seeking information on a supposed diagnoses for which I am allegedly contractually obligated to receive care for, I find it horribly concerning that I am not allowed to receive my diagnoses in accordance with the laws of the U.S. This lack of knowledge of HIPAA must be answered for by Mr. Miller and his staff. Additionally, for not informing me of a medical condition diagnosed by his doctor, Mr. Miller owes me an apology and a response. Despite rude, irresponsible behavior on the part of Mr. Miller's staff, I am limited in my ability to deal with this matter from eleven time zones away with limited resources. For this reason, once I was able to engage in a reasonable conversation with Ms. [redacted] I agreed to a $50 per month payment, as noted by Mr. Miller. I would also like to note that this figure was improperly recorded in Ms. [redacted]'s statement as “550.00”. I intend to continue paying as agreed – which is the same agreement that I made on the day that I received treatment but with a specified dollar amount. However, I am sorely disappointed by the unprofessional, insulting, and suspect practices engaged in by CVCC. A detailed answer from the leadership of the center must be given. The initial response by Mr. Miller, which creates more questions than it answers, shows a lack of attention to this matter that is not adequate to the level of grievances involved. I stand by my original claim that the conduct of this office is not in line with an A+ rating from the Revdex.com. Regards, [redacted]