Moonbrook Veterinary Hospital P.C.

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.  Hi,I want to reiterate that the reason I am unhappy is because
when I made the appointment it was specifically to get her hearing
checked out and I asked if they had the technology to look deep in her
ears.  Had I known they were going to just peak in her ears with an
otoscope, I would have had her regular vet do that when she had visited
them just days before.  The whole reason I made an appointment at Moon
Brook, which is not her normal vet, is because I had heard they had
advanced technology to look deep into dogs ears.  When I called, I asked
them that.  That was the ONLY and ENTIRE reason I brought her there.  I
feel it was a wasted trip to the vet.  I didn't get the service
(technology) I went there to get.  If you want records of when she
visited her normal vet to verify this, I will be happy to send them. 
I'm not trying to be a complaining customer but I am very frustrated.  I
feel like the people at Moon Brook don't care about giving me good
customer service and yes they offered to give me $6 off the bill but in
all honesty, that was insulting.  Had I known what they were going to do
when I went, I would have never made the appointment at all.  I made
sure to ask about the ear technology when I made the appointment -- that
is the whole reason I asked.  There has been a major miscommunication. 
Had I known they would test for yeast in her ears I would have not
went.  She gets yeast in her ears on and off after swimming and that is
NOT the reason I made the appointment.  The appointment was made to look
into her hearing loss.  Also, I never said the office manager was rude
to me or coercive.  What I said was, I will not be bullied by a business
- meaning they are threatening to send me to small claims court if  I
don't pay and also charging me interest on a bill for a service I did
not get!  There was a breach of contract on their part.  I made an
appointment based on the idea that I was going to get the vet to use
technology specifically for the ears.  I did not get that service. 
Hence why I am unhappy.  Thank you, [redacted]

response is in the form of an attachment  In regard to complaint by ID# [redacted]On 5/23/16, an appointment was scheduled by our office manager of 15 years, for complainant’s dog, [redacted] to be seen by one of our doctors on 5/26/16. The appointment note stated:  Scope the ears.  Owner is...

concerned that the ears are infected. One of our doctors performed a physical examination on Sasha, checking her heart, lungs, eyes, teeth, ears, nose, throat, skin, anus, abdomen, mucus membranes, and lymph nodes.  As part of the physical exam, the doctor examined the ears with an otoscope.  It was noted in the medical record that the ears were bilaterally red with some discharge.  Because of this, the doctor took a swab of the ear canal and examined a smear of the substance under the microscope.  Based on her findings, a diagnosis was made of bilateral otitis externa due to yeast. The doctor’s notes reflected that during their conversation about the diagnosis, the owner stated she had first noticed ear problems after swimming and that [redacted] has had yeast infections in the past, usually after swimming.  The owner went on to talk about having used a swimmers ear solution that she had purchased online and that she also had medication at home prescribed by another veterinarian from another veterinary hospital.  They discussed treatment and cleaning the ears after swimming. The owner then questioned whether Sasha’s trouble hearing was related to age.  She then stated that she came here because she wanted to figure out why she was having difficulty hearing and that she thought by coming here that we could do a scope deep down in her ear and see it on a screen.  The doctor explained that using the scope that is visible on the screen is not different from what she had done with the otoscope, and that she (the doctor) personally could see everything better looking directly through the otoscope, than on a screen. The doctor explained that hearing loss is likely due to old age.  She told her that hearing loss can be diagnosed by making loud noises, such as banging on something, close to her and observing her response.  To definitively diagnose why hearing loss had occurred, there would need to be further diagnostics, such as an MRI or CT scan while under anesthesia, by a veterinary neurologist.The following day, 5/27/16, the owner called our office and spoke with our office manager. (The same person who had originally scheduled the appointment.)  She expressed that she was unhappy that we couldn’t look past the eardrum and tell her why the dog was going deaf.  The complainant insisted that she wanted the appointment to look behind the ear drums.  The office manager tried to explain to her that asking us to scope the ears and being concerned about infection, is exactly what we addressed.  Our manager apologized for the misunderstanding.  She told her we were sorry that she was unhappy and offered to reduce the charges of $65.00 by 10% to $58.50, which she did.  After sending bills to the complainant in June, July, and August without receiving payment, and now gaining interest; our office manager called to speak with her about it.  The owner told her that she shouldn’t have to pay the bill because we didn’t look behind the eardrum and that was why she came in. Our office manager reiterated to her that, based on her wording of what she asked when requesting the appointment, we did what would reasonably be done in general practice, to that request.  She also stated that the bill stood as is and that if she chose not to pay, it would be referred to collections.  Before she could continue, the owner hung up on her.I am the hospital administrator for Moonbrook Veterinary Hospital, PC.  I was in the same room as our office manager when she spoke on the phone with the complainant on August 9th.  I can attest that she spoke courteously and professionally. It is our opinion that the complainant’s appointment request, because of the wording of her request, was taken care of appropriately and professionally.  She was never bullied nor coerced!  Her claim that we would not work with her, when we discounted her bill because we felt badly that she was unhappy, is unfounded.  Our slogan is “compassionate care for pets and their people”.  We are genuinely sorry that she was not happy with our service.