Phoenix Tree Service, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Speaking with Mr*** on 5/11/ At no time during the conversation did Mr*** offer to refund the office visits he mentioned in his reply He's made no attempt other than when office manager originally offered to refund the original office visit charge of $39, which I refused I tried to contact Mr*** multiple times as stated in previous responses (4/and 4/14) with no avail It was not until this complaint filed with the Revdex.com that Mr*** finally spoke with me regarding the issue (nearly one month later) Due to Mr***'s lack of timeliness addressing this issue, I was forced to take my dog elsewhere address the infection.There is correlation between my dogs ear infection and the care in which Franksville Veterinary Hospital took care of and kept my dog Mr*** continues to deny any wrongdoing or accept any responsibility to my dog's ear infection, his business practice lacks ethical standards Billing for the teeth pulling surgery included one follow up visit one week after surgery However, its now apparent this is just a bait and switch used by his practice to milk more money out of customers Thank you Revdex.com for facilitating these emails, I do ask that the Revdex.com retain this complaint on their website so others are not scammed as I was
Jim ***

We have tried to make a good faith effort to resolve it. We have not caused the owner's suggested problem (ear infection in his dog). Even though we haven't done anything, we offered to waive exam fees with the owner, but the owner refused. The owner wanted Free services AND goods for something we have not done. We asked the owner what would resolve this and he stated, "nothing". We did receive his letter dated 5/17/through the Revdex.com. We chose not to respond to it, because there was no resolution to be had, per the owner's admission. I would suggest that we have made a good faith effort to resolve it. The client did not make a good faith effort to resolve it. I would humbly submit that this complaint be resolved on your system.Thank you for your time, Dr***

Mr*** had his dog vaccinated with us on Jan 10th, 2017. He was scheduled to return for booster vaccinations and did so on Jan 31st, 2017. Mr*** was under the impression that he would not have to pay for anything during his visit on Jan 31st. Mr*** could not
give any details as to who had told him he would not have to pay. Standard policy is to pay for all visits. A brief inquiry to staff did not confirm Mr*** recollection. Mr*** was asked to pay for treatment that he received On March 22nd, Mr*** had a substantial dental treatment for his dog performed. On 4/7/17, Mr*** returned for a recheck of his dog's mouth (A courtesy recheck of the mouth is included with the dental procedure and highly recommended 10-days after the procedure). At this recheck visit, Mr*** said that the dogs ears were bothering the dog and he had been treating them at home with alcohol wipes (without any veterinary recommendation). Mr*** was informed that this treatment was NOT recommended because it can cause further harm to the ear. Mr*** then requested ear medication. The veterinary assistant informed Mr*** this was outside the scope of the courtesy exam and there would be additional charges. Mr*** was not happy with this policy/fee structure. Mr*** left without following the advice of staff (Note: Standard of care (with medical and legal implications) would prohibit a veterinarian from "dispensing" medication without examination and/or diagnostic testing which would incur additional fees).(Note: Dental procedures do involve a lot of water, but the water is never allowed to reach the ear. Given the wet/grate table that is used, water can not physically pool near the dogs ear. An ear infection is NOT considered a "side effect" of a dental. In years of performing dental cleanings/extractions, I have never had a procedure such as this cause an ear infection. Dr***, with over years of experience, concurs with my findings). For this reason, it was considered that the ear problem was NOT a consequence of the dental procedure and merely coincidental.On 4/11/17, the office manager called Mr*** and left a message in response to MrJender's expressed displeasure. Later that day, Mr*** called back and expressed his displeasure with our policy. Mr*** was offered to have an office visit performed as a courtesy (as opposed to our structure of charging for this type of visit), but was told that diagnostics and medication would still incur a charge. Mr*** was still displeased and said only a 100% reduction in fees (for exam, testing, and medication) would satisfy him. The office manager was not in a position to offer that to Mr***.The office manager passed along MrJender's request to have the owner, me, call him. I called Mr*** on 4/11/and reached his voicemail. I left a message with Mr*** to call me on 4/13/17, the next business day I was in the office. I left my office phone number. Mr*** never returned my phone call (Mr*** stated that he has attempted to return my phone call multiple times, but no message has been left at my office. It is highly unlikely, although not impossible, for multiple messages not to be reported to me. My staff is very aware of the sensitivity of messages that I routinely receive.)I certainly understand MrJender's frustration. However, it is routine practice in human and veterinary hospitals to charge for all services rendered. We can not survive without charging for the services we provide.MrJender claims that the ear problem was caused by the dental procedure. I, personally, have performed hundreds of dental procedures over the years and have never had an ear infection as a complication of a dental procedure. Dr*** has performed hundreds of dental procedures and has never seen this as a complication. A review of the veterinary literature does NOT support that ear infections are a complication of a dental procedure. We attempted to explain this to Mr***. Mr*** was only seeking free veterinary care, something that we were unwilling to do.We have attempted to explain our reasoning to Mr***. The staff appropriately elevated Mr Jender's concerns to the highest level in our company. My attempts to reach him were unsuccessful. We take customer service very seriously. We are saddened by the loss of Mr *** as a client. We could not, in our medical opinion, just "give" him some medication.If you have any questions about the summary of our attempts to handle Mr*** concerns, please feel free to call me at 262-694-0402.Sincerely,DrEdward ***-- Edward ***, DVMPrairie Side Veterinary Hospital Kenosha, WI 262-694-0402Franksville Veterinary Clinic Franksville, WI 262-886-0333Prairie Side Veterinary Hospital Racine, WI 262-633-

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Mr*** stated that my complaint is only seeking free veterinary care. Unfortunately this along with a few other statements in his response is also untrue. First, on the Jan 10th visit, both Dr*** and the Vet Tech (the one who sat at the front desk that day) reassured me there was no additional cost for part two of the booster shot of the office visit. Dr*** stated the only thing that would need to be paid was for any bloodwork drawn. This question was asked during the exam to Dr*** on Jan 10th and at the desk (to the Vet tech) while paying that same day. On the January 31st visit, I decided to have bloodwork drawn on my dog. Expecting to pay for that as instructed, I was shocked to find additional charges (booster part II and an office visit) on my bill. When asked about the additional charges, the Vet Tech could not provide explanation other than saying ‘that’s what the computer says’. I paid with displeasure, but didn’t raise concern. Unfortunately I did not think to get in writing that the second part of the booster or office visit would not be charged. It’s understandable the pricing structures and billable amounts change especially in a new calendar year. Unfortunately looking back at this now, this was a bait and switch tactic for additional money. Maybe this is a training issue for Mr*** and his staff.Second, it’s reasonable to assume that dental procedures use a lot of water. But to state that my dog’s face did not have a chance to get wet is a bold lie. When picking up my dog on 3/22, the entire left side of her face / fur was wet, from her mouth all the way up to her ear and down her neck. Even the Vet Tech who brought her in the office commented that she didn’t have a chance to wipe my dog’s face. At some point while under the care of Franksville Veterinary Clinic, that side of my dog’s face was in contact with water. Next was the follow up visit on 4/7. I mentioned to the Vet Tech that my dog’s ears had been bothering her, and that brown gunk was coming out of them when I wiped them. I mentioned to the Vet Tech that when I picked up my dog, the entire left side of her face was wet. The Vet Tech smelled the ear (noting the ears smelled yeasty) and swabbed them noting the brown gunk. I did not state I was using alcohol wipes, I asked if I could clean them with alcohol or if there was a medicine they could recommend. The Vet Tech warned me not to use alcohol on the ears and that an ear examination was not covered as part of the follow up visit. Informing her of my concern that this was all correlated, she laughed at me stating, ‘If you broke your leg and you came back to that doctor for a follow up visit, do you think they would cover an eye problem’. Again I asked if they could just recommend some sort of medicine or cream I could purchase, and was told I would need a separate office appointment / charge. There was no advice of the staff, only stating not to use alcohol and that anything else would be charged extra. Disgusted I left.I took to Facebook, Yelp, and Google reviews to share my experience with others that night 4/7. Later that night I got a reply back informing me to call up Kay at the Kenosha office. I did, that following Monday 4/10, hearing back from the same Vet Tech Tawye on 4/11. She offered to waive the office visit charge, but stated I would have to pay for diagnostics and medicine. I stated I was unhappy, I would take her up on the offer but would be only willing to pay for medicine because this should be included as part of the follow up visit. Again, she said all we are offering is a free office visit. I politely declined and asked the owner to call me. Mr*** called me later that night leaving a voice mail. The next day (4/12), I called Mr*** at his Kenosha office at 262-694-around 4pm. I left a message with someone at his office, stating who I was and asking for Mr*** to call me back. Later that week, 4/I called back again leaving another message with no contact from MrSusmilich. *Note these were actual messages with someone, not voicemails.There was clearly some correlation between the surgery and the ear problem my dog had. In no way was my displeasure an attempt to get ‘free’ services. As a controller of a business myself, it’s about doing what is right for the customer. If I was truly upset at the prices, I would not have came back to this veterinary after the second visit on 1/ Clearly now it’s too late to address this issue with my dog, right now as I stated in my original complaint to the Revdex.com, this is purely just to warn other customers about bait and switch tactics and bad management.Please let me know if you have any questions. If MrSusmilich would like to finally return my messages, he may feel free to do so as well. Thanks Jim ***