Mobile C-arm Service

To Whom It May Concern:
We find the complaint lamentable for the following reasons:
The customer was, at the time of the requested service, on default with their account as they have a past due amount of over $5,from the year
2010.
We agreed to provide service for said initial date on the complaint (through the president's spouse's company) with a "payment upon delivery" status
The payment was not available upon delivery at which time the customer acquired approximately 40% of the needed payment to proceed (hence the late start)
remaining balance was still not paid on the second day of service (current amount owed for the service in claim $4,200)
To this date we have not received payment for the days of service for this customer
The State has been informed of their claim regarding Radiation safety as we take that claim very seriously and will be looking into the incident as well as their facility protocols as per regulations
Legal advice has been sought in this matter
Respectfully,
Mobile C-Arm Serivces

We are extremely dissatisfied with the quality of work performed and the work ethics demonstrated by Mobile C-arm Service in relation to labs conducted at our facility on August [redacted] 2013. On the [redacted], Mobile C-arm was supposed to have delivered three units at 7am, but did not arrived until 11:30 a.m., and then with only 2 Mobile C-arms when 3 C-arms where requested -. On top of that, the Mobil C-Arms could not be operated because lead shielding had not been provided, as was contemplated by the invoice. SFAHP was forced to find its own lead shielding, leading to significant additional delays. Under Texas Administrative Code [redacted] Mobile C-arm Services operated their equipment incorrectly, exposing my clients, surgeons, staff to a hazardous environment. I have taken the liberty to include Texas Administrative Code [redacted] and I have highlighted the provisions with which Mobile C-arm did not comply. In addition, Mobile C-Arm technicians demonstrated a shocking degree of unprofessionalism over the two-day lab, including: 1.Sitting outside the lab refusing to work until payment was received.2.Unplugging monitors, interrupting a Lab in progress and walking out.3.Technician defaming SFAHP in front of our clients and their guests and continuing to do so after being asked by our staff and our client to be quiet. 4.Technicians arriving late again on August **, 2013. They were expected to be here before 7:00am and they did not show up until 7:30am. 5.Leaving to lunch while again Lab was in progress.There is no excuse for the hazardous exposure and unprofessionalism Mobile C-arm technicians demonstrated towards SFAHP Labs. Their conduct led to significant delays, disruption of the labs, and inconvenience and irritation to our clients. Due to this one of our principle clients, has canceled three future labs as a direct result of Mobile C-arms negligence and unprofessionalism. Lost revenue for the canceled labs totals xxxx. We also are facing demands for the return of at least a portion of the lab fee from our clients, which is claiming that it suffered damages as a result of the delays and disruption. The losses to SFAHP as a result of Mobile C-arm actions is considerable