Lambs Gap Animal Hospital

August 3, 2017To Whom It May Concern,I am writing in response.to complaint ID *** in order to explain our position in the matter,On June 14, 2017, the complainant had an appointment at our hospital for his dogThe purpose of the appointment was to update the dog's vaccinesThe complainant
also informed us that his dog was exhibiting odorous breathWhen the doctor and veterinary assistant entered the,exam room, the dog began growling at the staffThe dog had to be muzzled by the complainant as we were unable to approach the dogThe doctor performed a physical examination, although was unable to examine the dog's mouth due to the muzzleTwo small masses were noted during the examinationAfter the exam, the complainant removed the muzzle and opened the dog's mouth so the doctor could see insideThe doctor could not closely examine the dog's mouth, but noted a possibly fractured right lower canine tooth and minimal tarterThe doctor recommended a dental cleaning and removal of the larger massWe provided an estimate to the owner via email on: June 16,The estimate included one mass removal and the dental cleaning.On July 28,the complainant brought his dog to our office for a dental cleaning and mass removal.At admission, the complainant requested that we also remove the second mass noted during the examinationIt was explained that the second mass was'not Included on the estimate and would be additionalThe complainant muzzled the dog so we could draw blood for the pre-anesthetic bloodwork and give the initial sedation. Once fully anesthetized, we were, able to completely examine the dog's mouthWith probes, we determined that teeth needed to be extracted due to abscesses and mobilityAn antibiotic injection was given due to the infection and additional antibiotics were prescribed to be given at HomeThe veterinary assistant attempted to contact the complainant via cell phone but there was no answer and the mailbox was fullShe then contacted the complainant via work phone and left a voice mailWhen the complainant had not called back several hours later, the assistant contacted him again via cell phone and updated him on the procedure and explained that extractions were neededWhen the dog was discharged to the complainant, he refused to pay the balance.On July 31, I contacted the complainant regarding the invoiceI explained that'due to the dog's aggressive behavior during the physical exam in June 2017, the doctor was unable to fully examine the dog's mouth, instead having to visually look from across the roomAs the doctor was not able to see the condition of the gums, we provided an estimate on what she could see. I explained that once the dog was sedated, the doctor was able to determine that teeth were abscessed, needing extractionI explained that those extractions were not expected and could not have been expected due to being unable to fully examine the mouthI explained that antibiotics necessary for the abscesses also were not on the estimateThe complainant said that he understood and my explanation made sense to him, but he still thought we should not charge him above the estimate, I explained that it was an estimate, not a quote and that sometimes we discover problems not expectedI also explained that we attempted to contact him via cell phone and the call was not answered and we were unable to leave a message, l explained that we then left a voicemail on his work phoneThe complainant accused me of lying about the phone callsHe said he would pay the balance but would be reporting us to the Revdex.comHe asked me to mail him an invoice and he would submit paymentNo payment has been received as of this date.In addition, the complainant was provided an estimate on June 16,It clearly states at the bottom of the estimate that it is only good for thirty daysThe complainant brought his dog for the procedure on July 28, 2017, forty two days after the estimate was provided, thus making the estimate null and voidMedical and dental health can change significantly within forty two daysThe complainant did not ask for an updated estimate at admission.Our hospital provided the services invoiced for, and we do expect full payment for those servicesThank you for your consideration in this matter.Sincerely,Melissa Y.Office Manager

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
In the first response, they stated that the dog does growl when approached. Now in the second response they mention that he growls and bare his teethIf that was the case, why didn't they mention that in the first response? They also stated that he was barking an growling on the July during admissionWhile I do admit my dog backs into me and will give a nervous growl, he has never barked or showed his teeth at the vetIn fact, I have never heard my dog bark while in public.In the first response, they wrote, "The veterinary assistant attempted to contact the complainant via cell phone but there was no answer and the mailbox was fullShe then contacted the complainant via work phone and left a voice mail." In the second response, it is stated that they tried to contact my work phone after the procedure was overThis completely contradicts what was stated in the first statementSo not only are they trying to exaggerate the "threatening" behavior of my dog, they are changing the story on how they contacted me during the procedure.On the day of the procedure, the assistant approached my dog and warmed up to my dogMy dog smelled the assistant and the assistant even petted my dog's headAt this time, there was no muzzle on my dog or any sedativeThey even took blood from my dog right there in the waiting roomAll of this was done without any muzzle and before any sedative was given, while there were other customers in the waiting roomIf my dog is so threatening, why would you do those things without a muzzle or sedative in front of other customers?On august 8, I brought my dog in to have the staples from the procedure removedThe technician removed these staples without a muzzle or a sedativeSo apparently my dog is threatening when it helps their case but he must not be bad at other timesI know I wouldn't be removing staples from a "threatening" dog without a muzzleI guess they weren't worried about their safety that day.Regards,
*** ***

August 3, 2017To Whom It May Concern,I am writing in response.to complaint ID *** in order to explain our position in the matter,On June 14, 2017, the complainant had an appointment at our hospital for his dogThe purpose of the appointment was to update the dog's vaccinesThe complainant also informed us that his dog was exhibiting odorous breathWhen the doctor and veterinary assistant entered the,exam room, the dog began growling at the staffThe dog had to be muzzled by the complainant as we were unable to approach the dogThe doctor performed a physical examination, although was unable to examine the dog's mouth due to the muzzleTwo small masses were noted during the examinationAfter the exam, the complainant removed the muzzle and opened the dog's mouth so the doctor could see insideThe doctor could not closely examine the dog's mouth, but noted a possibly fractured right lower canine tooth and minimal tarterThe doctor recommended a dental cleaning and removal of the larger massWe provided an estimate to the owner via email on June 16,The estimate included one mass removal and the dental cleaning.On July 28,the complainant brought his dog to our office for a dental cleaning and mass removal.At admission, the complainant requested that we also remove the second mass noted during the examinationIt was explained that the second mass was'not Included on the estimate and would be additionalThe complainant muzzled the dog so we could draw blood for the pre-anesthetic bloodwork and give the initial sedation. Once fully anesthetized, we were, able to completely examine the dog's mouthWith probes, we determined that teeth needed to be extracted due to abscesses and mobilityAn antibiotic injection was given due to the infection and additional antibiotics were prescribed to be given at homeThe veterinary assistant attempted to contact the complainant via cell phone but there was no answer and the mailbox was fullShe then contacted the complainant via work phone and left a voice mailWhen the complainant had not called back several hours later, the assistant contacted him again via cell phone and updated him on the procedure and explained that extractions were neededWhen the dog was discharged to the complainant, he refused to pay the balance.On July 31, I contacted the complainant regarding the invoiceI explained that due to the dog's aggressive behavior during the physical exam in June 2017, the doctor was unable to fully examine the dog's mouth, instead having to visually look from across the roomAs the doctor was not able to see the condition of the gums, we provided an estimate on what she could see. I explained that once the dog was sedated, the doctor was able to determine that teeth were abscessed, needing extractionI explained that those extractions were not expected and could not have been expected due to being unable to fully examine the mouthI explained that antibiotics necessary for the abscesses also were not on the estimateThe complainant said that he understood and my explanation made sense to him, but he still thought we should not charge him above the estimate, I explained that it was an estimate, not a quote and that sometimes we discover problems not expectedI also explained that we attempted to contact him via cell phone and the call was not answered and we were unable to leave a message, l explained that we then left a voicemail on his work phoneThe complainant accused me of lying about the phone callsHe said he would pay the balance but would be reporting us to the Revdex.comHe asked me to mail him an invoice and he would submit paymentNo payment has been received as of this date.In addition, the complainant was provided an estimate on June 16,It clearly states at the bottom of the estimate that it is only good for thirty daysThe complainant brought his dog for the procedure on July 28, 2017, forty two days after the estimate was provided, thus making the estimate null and voidMedical and dental health can change significantly within forty two daysThe complainant did not ask for an updated estimate at admission.Our hospital provided the services invoiced for, and we do expect full payment for those servicesThank you for your consideration in this matter.Sincerely,Melissa Y.Office Manager

August 10, 2017To whom It May Concern,I am writing in response to complaint ID [redacted]. I am responding to the complainant's rejection of my previous response.The complainant's dog has only been receiving care at our hospital since July 15, 2016. The dog's prior medical history was faxed to us by his previous veterinarian.  It boldly states on the prior medical history that the dog will bite. Although the dog has never bitten one of our staff members, he does growl intently and bare his teeth when approached. For the safety of our staff, the owner places muzzle on the dog for any physical examinations. The complainant stated that he held the dog's open at the doctor's discretion and she refused to get close to examine the dog's mouth on June 142017. This is true, as she was concerned for her safety due to the dog's aggressive demeanor. Our doctors do not refuse service to dogs displaying aggressive behavior, but we do insist on taking all precautions necessary to prevent injury. We do not intend to offend the complainant by these statements; many animal have friendly dispositions at home act aggressively at the veterinarian due to fear. At admission on June 28, 2017, the complainant was asked to help with restraining the dog for pre-surgical bloodwork and sedation, The dog was growling and barking at staff in the waiting room.  The doctor and veterinary assistant had the complainant hold the dogs head while the sedative was given, As they were not approaching the dog's head, they were able to do this without a muzzle. The dog's leash was then handed to the assistant, who was able to lead the dog to the treatment area as the sedative was already starting to work. During the examination on June 14, 2017, the doctor did note two masses. However, the doctor noted that, after discussion during the appointment, only the larger mass was planned to be removed.  She told the complainant that she would have an estimate sent to him for one mass removal and a dental cleaning. After receiving the estimate, neither the complainant nor his wife indicated that they had any questions regarding the estimate. When the surgery appointment was scheduled, the 30 day estimate policy was not mentioned to the receptionist. The receptionist scheduled the surgery according to when the complainant's wife requested. Earlier surgery appointments were available, but the complainant's wife elected to schedule for June 28, 2017. When the surgery appointment was scheduled, it was for one on June 28, 2017, he asked  to also have the second mass removed. He clearly knew that the second mass was an addition to the planned procedure.The complainant state's that we had all available information to provide an accurate estimate. I refute that statement. As already explained, the doctor was not able to physically examine the dog's mouth prior to the procedure. Visually looking in the dog's mouth did not provide information on the health of the teeth and gums.  Just as you cannot always tell if a person has a cavity by just visually looking at their mouth, Once the dog was anesthetized and the doctor was able to examine his mouth, abscessed teeth were discovered. We did try to call the complainant's cell phone during the procedure, which is the phone number he left as his emergency contact. The phone call was not answered and we were unable to leave a message. Once the procedure was over, the assistant called again with the post-surgery update, She again tried the cell phone number twice with no answer she then called the work number. When the complainant had not responded a couple hours later, she called his cell phone number again.As stated in my previous response, we provided the complainant an estimate, not a quote. There are always unknown variables with practicing medicine, and treatment needs can change quickly.  Practicing medicine is not an exact science, and there are often unknown variables that necessitate changing of treatment plans it clearly states on the estimate that charges may differ due to the pet's medical needs.  Our hospital performed all of the services we invoiced for.Sincerely,Melissa Y.Office Manager