Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: PLS offered me $to take the complaint back but I DIDNOT agreeSo far no other phone call from themIf whole amount of $is refunded I am satisfied.Thanks.Dr [redacted]
In reality, a good deal of work was completed on this project PLS integrated the client's data into a usable licensing format, completed all necessary research to identify and locate the proper person responsible for each verification and each facility, prepared all verification paperwork and forms, completed all three applications, and requested all non-expiring verifications So the workflow has been put in a position that should the doctor wish to proceed things can progress in a very efficient and timely manner
Dr*ordered NC and SC licensure July 7, Work began immediately with data entry A consultation was sent to the doctor to obtain necessary missing information on July 8, She returned the consultation on August 27, Her applications were completed and sent for her review and signature on August 28, She returned the signed applications on November 9, and both were immediately filed with the respective state medical boards Dynamic and methodical verifications were requested November 11, USMLE and OH vol were reprocessed on January 20, Reference letters were finally sent in and her license in NC was issued March 18, 2016.PLS processed this license as obligated South Carolina requires verification through the FCVS which can be a considerably longer process Our system shows that all verifications outside of those obtained through the FCVS were processed January 20, We also show that the SC Board confirmed file completion on July 6, pending physician interview, which apparently never took place Dr*did not pay PLS $1,as stated She paid $for NC and $for SC PLS completed NC While all required work was completed for SC, we accept responsibility for communication deficiencies Therefore we would be happy to offer a refund of half of the SC processing fee
This is something of a surprise since PLS has been consistently working on Dr [redacted] 's files according to the following timeline: 8/24/- Order placed and entered 8/25/- Introduction correspondence sent to Dr [redacted] notifying him of the next steps 8/28/- Notification sent to Dr [redacted] that the credit card provided was getting declined and that PLS could begin work once payment was received 9/2/- PLS asked by Dr [redacted] to try the credit card again 9/8/- Credit card payment went through 9/9/- Consultation sent to the doctor to obtain information necessary to continue the process 9/25/- PLS notified by doctor's wife that his existing license has been disciplined and asked that PLS suspend work until the existing discipline can be resolved JH [redacted] informed doctor's wife that we would retain the files under the current fee for one year, until 9/25/ 10/9/- Notified by Dr [redacted] that he wished for PLS to resume work on his CT, NE, and CA licenses 10/10/- PLS continued research work on the needed verifications 10/15/- Notification sent to Dr [redacted] that we still had not received the consultation back 10/28/- Consultation came back from the doctor 11/12/- Initial research work completed and doctor's file entered into queue for applications completion 11/14/- Complaint filed No notice of cancellation was sent to Dr [redacted] 's PLS Consultant We certainly could have produced a better outcome than this
I am the only person at PLS that can authorize refunds and I reaffirm that this was not authorized and will be handled internally We would be happy to complete the processes that have been ordered and could provide a different PLS Consultant that may have a better personality fit If the doctor is adamant in not pursuing the order I feel that an appropriate consideration would be for PLS to honor the cancellation/refund policy that the doctor agreed to upon ordering, and overlook the 5-day limitation So we would return 40% of the processing fees
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Nothing was done on their part$is a substantial amount of money for zero work Sincerely, [redacted]
PLS received an order from Dr*** on July 27, Work began immediately and a consultation form was sent to the doctor on August 2, The consultation was returned to PLS on August 25, 2016, but was not complete Specifically, in order to complete the licensing
process a letter explaining termination from LVHN would be necessaryWe were told that nothing came of state investigation and that the doctor believed she had a style that didn't fit with Lehigh Valley The doctor was notified by PLS that we needed additional information in order to continue the process Our system shows that the additional information was not submitted The PLS representative should have been more assertive in following up on receiving the info, but felt that the doctor was aware of the need and that she was working on the files at the doctor's pace PLS remains in a great position to complete the processing of these licenses and would be happy to transfer her files to a different consultant should that prove beneficial
DrS*** ordered a Texas license from PLS in March of opting for Standard processing rather than Accelerated Work began immediately His application was completed and sent to him for his review and all known verifications were processed within three weeks In order to
gather the required information to process the application, PLS sent a consultation to the doctor asking for specifics on his practice history One of the questions asked where he held hospital privileges He listed two hospitals During the application evaluation, the Texas Medical Board learned that he had privileges at an additional two hospitals Because of the timing of the discovery, we informed the doctor that he should request an extension from the Texas Board - which they readily grant if requested by the applicant All items disclosed to PLS were effectively handled, but we are unable to process items that are not disclosed In the beginning of our relationship with DrS*** we were informed that his preferred method of communication was through e-mail We have several copies of e-mail correspondence that was sent to the doctor apprising him of the status of his application It is unfortunate that this complaint was made as these items could have been easily rectified with proper information provided initially
Every state medical board has its own unique system, processes, and protocolsAfter processing nearly 30,files we have gained great insight into the requirements of each boardDr*** was fired from a jobEach board looks at irregularities such as this differentlyUnderstandably, the doctor preferred to provide minimalist detailsOur experience dictated that such a response would be insufficient for the boards she was applying to even though similar information may have been used in applications for other licensesThe PLS representative did, as the doctor states, confirm receipt of the initial response, but after consulting with our application specialist, informed the doctor that some additional details would be necessaryWe did not hear back from the doctor. As for the castgation that the owner was unresponsive we categorically reject that pointThe owner is in the office nearly every business day during business hours, has never heard of a complaint of a full inbox, returns phone messages daily, is very easy to reach, and has had direct correspondence with several clients since this claim was madeNo correspondence was ever received from Dr*** in escalation. Once again, we affirm that we have completed much of the process and with cooperation and a few more details we can easily finish the job
We are happy to resolve this matter quickly Our online ordering processes are clear and distinct There is nothing on our order forms that confuse us with the FCVS In the doctor's statement that "they acknowledged the error", we confirm that Physician Licensing Service did not
make an error in this order, but rather the doctor ordered our services in error Because of the speed at which we process, we are unable to refund the verification fees, but will be happy to refund the PLS processing fee
Dr*** ordered services on 2/17/ PLS immediately began data assimilation and research and sent the doctor a consultation form The consultation was returned on 2/23/and final research was conducted The application was completed once all questions had been answered and
sent to the doctor for signature and review The concurrent verification process has been progressing nicely and we expect the license to come through as projected The communication has been addressed with Dr***'s PLS Consultant and we are confident that she is receiving updates on protocol now
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
PLS offered me $to take the complaint back but I DIDNOT agreeSo far no other phone call from themIf whole amount of $is refunded I am satisfied.Thanks.Dr*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and
find that this resolution is satisfactory to meI also wanted to let you know that Tony H*** the director of the company contacted me by phone yesterday August 23, at 10:31am Pacific Time and agreed to me give the full refund, but failed to emailed me back with confirmation of this comunication and verbal agreement but I will give follow up to that today
Sincerely,
*** ***
PLS has been consistently and effectively working on this license since the initial order Texas licensing is an extensive process and we are down to just a few simple items now Dr***'s prior PLS Consultant has been let go and during the end of her tenure her communication did slow
We have been in contact regularly with Dr*** since becoming aware of the communication delays and are serving him on protocol We expect the process to come to fruition very soon
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The last email I had with my agent was about how she received my information She never talked to me on the phone, nor asked me for the additional information I lost a job because the initial application wasn't even filed to get going I sent over everything that was asked of me, the emailed if everything was received She stated it was Then I didn't hear anything for weeks or more When I expressed my frustrations, she just stopped working on it all together The owner never answered my emails and his mailbox was full I do not believe they were there to make good on their work I felt like a sucker in a money stealing scheme
Sincerely,*** ***
*** ***
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The company should refund the whole amount for the South Carolina license since they failed to complete the process After two years, I still do not have a South Carolina licenseThe company never responded to my inquiries about the license or the processI do not feel I should pay them any amount for South Carolina licensure because they neglected to fulfil their contract with me.
Sincerely,
*** ***
Dr. *. ordered NC and SC licensure July 7, 2015. Work began immediately with data entry. A consultation was sent to the doctor to obtain necessary missing information on July 8, 2015. She returned the consultation on August 27, 2015. Her applications were completed and sent...
for her review and signature on August 28, 2015. She returned the signed applications on November 9, 2015 and both were immediately filed with the respective state medical boards. Dynamic and methodical verifications were requested November 11, 2015. USMLE and OH vol were reprocessed on January 20, 2016. Reference letters were finally sent in and her license in NC was issued March 18, 2016.PLS processed this license as obligated. South Carolina requires verification through the FCVS which can be a considerably longer process. Our system shows that all verifications outside of those obtained through the FCVS were processed January 20, 2016. We also show that the SC Board confirmed file completion on July 6, 2016 pending physician interview, which apparently never took place. Dr. *. did not pay PLS $1,500 as stated. She paid $550 for NC and $550 for SC. PLS completed NC. While all required work was completed for SC, we accept responsibility for communication deficiencies. Therefore we would be happy to offer a refund of half of the SC processing fee.
In reality, a good deal of work was completed on this project. PLS integrated the client's data into a usable licensing format, completed all necessary research to identify and locate the proper person responsible for each verification and each facility, prepared all verification paperwork and forms, completed all three applications, and requested all non-expiring verifications. So the workflow has been put in a position that should the doctor wish to proceed things can progress in a very efficient and timely manner.
This is something of a
surprise since PLS has been consistently working on Dr. [redacted]'s files
according to the following timeline:
8/24/15 - Order...
placed
and entered
8/25/15 - Introduction
correspondence sent to Dr. [redacted] notifying him of the next steps
8/28/15 - Notification
sent to Dr. [redacted] that the credit card provided was getting declined and that
PLS could begin work once payment was received.
9/2/15 - PLS asked by
Dr. [redacted] to try the credit card again.
9/8/15 - Credit card
payment went through
9/9/15 - Consultation
sent to the doctor to obtain information necessary to continue the process
9/25/15 - PLS notified
by doctor's wife that his existing license has been disciplined and asked that
PLS suspend work until the existing discipline can be resolved. J. H[redacted]
informed doctor's wife that we would retain the files under the current fee for
one year, until 9/25/16
10/9/15 - Notified by
Dr. [redacted] that he wished for PLS to resume work on his CT, NE, and CA
licenses.
10/10/15 - PLS continued
research work on the needed verifications
10/15/15 - Notification
sent to Dr. [redacted] that we still had not received the consultation back
10/28/15 - Consultation
came back from the doctor
11/12/15 - Initial
research work completed and doctor's file entered into queue for applications
completion
11/14/15 - Complaint
filed
No notice of
cancellation was sent to Dr. [redacted]'s PLS Consultant. We certainly could have produced a better outcome than this.
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: PLS offered me $to take the complaint back but I DIDNOT agreeSo far no other phone call from themIf whole amount of $is refunded I am satisfied.Thanks.Dr [redacted]
In reality, a good deal of work was completed on this project PLS integrated the client's data into a usable licensing format, completed all necessary research to identify and locate the proper person responsible for each verification and each facility, prepared all verification paperwork and forms, completed all three applications, and requested all non-expiring verifications So the workflow has been put in a position that should the doctor wish to proceed things can progress in a very efficient and timely manner
Dr*ordered NC and SC licensure July 7, Work began immediately with data entry A consultation was sent to the doctor to obtain necessary missing information on July 8, She returned the consultation on August 27, Her applications were completed and sent for her review and signature on August 28, She returned the signed applications on November 9, and both were immediately filed with the respective state medical boards Dynamic and methodical verifications were requested November 11, USMLE and OH vol were reprocessed on January 20, Reference letters were finally sent in and her license in NC was issued March 18, 2016.PLS processed this license as obligated South Carolina requires verification through the FCVS which can be a considerably longer process Our system shows that all verifications outside of those obtained through the FCVS were processed January 20, We also show that the SC Board confirmed file completion on July 6, pending physician interview, which apparently never took place Dr*did not pay PLS $1,as stated She paid $for NC and $for SC PLS completed NC While all required work was completed for SC, we accept responsibility for communication deficiencies Therefore we would be happy to offer a refund of half of the SC processing fee
This is something of a surprise since PLS has been consistently working on Dr [redacted] 's files according to the following timeline: 8/24/- Order placed and entered 8/25/- Introduction correspondence sent to Dr [redacted] notifying him of the next steps 8/28/- Notification sent to Dr [redacted] that the credit card provided was getting declined and that PLS could begin work once payment was received 9/2/- PLS asked by Dr [redacted] to try the credit card again 9/8/- Credit card payment went through 9/9/- Consultation sent to the doctor to obtain information necessary to continue the process 9/25/- PLS notified by doctor's wife that his existing license has been disciplined and asked that PLS suspend work until the existing discipline can be resolved JH [redacted] informed doctor's wife that we would retain the files under the current fee for one year, until 9/25/ 10/9/- Notified by Dr [redacted] that he wished for PLS to resume work on his CT, NE, and CA licenses 10/10/- PLS continued research work on the needed verifications 10/15/- Notification sent to Dr [redacted] that we still had not received the consultation back 10/28/- Consultation came back from the doctor 11/12/- Initial research work completed and doctor's file entered into queue for applications completion 11/14/- Complaint filed No notice of cancellation was sent to Dr [redacted] 's PLS Consultant We certainly could have produced a better outcome than this
I am the only person at PLS that can authorize refunds and I reaffirm that this was not authorized and will be handled internally We would be happy to complete the processes that have been ordered and could provide a different PLS Consultant that may have a better personality fit If the doctor is adamant in not pursuing the order I feel that an appropriate consideration would be for PLS to honor the cancellation/refund policy that the doctor agreed to upon ordering, and overlook the 5-day limitation So we would return 40% of the processing fees
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Nothing was done on their part$is a substantial amount of money for zero work Sincerely, [redacted]
PLS received an order from Dr*** on July 27, Work began immediately and a consultation form was sent to the doctor on August 2, The consultation was returned to PLS on August 25, 2016, but was not complete Specifically, in order to complete the licensing
process a letter explaining termination from LVHN would be necessaryWe were told that nothing came of state investigation and that the doctor believed she had a style that didn't fit with Lehigh Valley The doctor was notified by PLS that we needed additional information in order to continue the process Our system shows that the additional information was not submitted The PLS representative should have been more assertive in following up on receiving the info, but felt that the doctor was aware of the need and that she was working on the files at the doctor's pace PLS remains in a great position to complete the processing of these licenses and would be happy to transfer her files to a different consultant should that prove beneficial
DrS*** ordered a Texas license from PLS in March of opting for Standard processing rather than Accelerated Work began immediately His application was completed and sent to him for his review and all known verifications were processed within three weeks In order to
gather the required information to process the application, PLS sent a consultation to the doctor asking for specifics on his practice history One of the questions asked where he held hospital privileges He listed two hospitals During the application evaluation, the Texas Medical Board learned that he had privileges at an additional two hospitals Because of the timing of the discovery, we informed the doctor that he should request an extension from the Texas Board - which they readily grant if requested by the applicant All items disclosed to PLS were effectively handled, but we are unable to process items that are not disclosed In the beginning of our relationship with DrS*** we were informed that his preferred method of communication was through e-mail We have several copies of e-mail correspondence that was sent to the doctor apprising him of the status of his application It is unfortunate that this complaint was made as these items could have been easily rectified with proper information provided initially
Every state medical board has its own unique system, processes, and protocolsAfter processing nearly 30,files we have gained great insight into the requirements of each boardDr*** was fired from a jobEach board looks at irregularities such as this differentlyUnderstandably, the doctor preferred to provide minimalist detailsOur experience dictated that such a response would be insufficient for the boards she was applying to even though similar information may have been used in applications for other licensesThe PLS representative did, as the doctor states, confirm receipt of the initial response, but after consulting with our application specialist, informed the doctor that some additional details would be necessaryWe did not hear back from the doctor. As for the castgation that the owner was unresponsive we categorically reject that pointThe owner is in the office nearly every business day during business hours, has never heard of a complaint of a full inbox, returns phone messages daily, is very easy to reach, and has had direct correspondence with several clients since this claim was madeNo correspondence was ever received from Dr*** in escalation. Once again, we affirm that we have completed much of the process and with cooperation and a few more details we can easily finish the job
We are happy to resolve this matter quickly Our online ordering processes are clear and distinct There is nothing on our order forms that confuse us with the FCVS In the doctor's statement that "they acknowledged the error", we confirm that Physician Licensing Service did not
make an error in this order, but rather the doctor ordered our services in error Because of the speed at which we process, we are unable to refund the verification fees, but will be happy to refund the PLS processing fee
Dr*** ordered services on 2/17/ PLS immediately began data assimilation and research and sent the doctor a consultation form The consultation was returned on 2/23/and final research was conducted The application was completed once all questions had been answered and
sent to the doctor for signature and review The concurrent verification process has been progressing nicely and we expect the license to come through as projected The communication has been addressed with Dr***'s PLS Consultant and we are confident that she is receiving updates on protocol now
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
PLS offered me $to take the complaint back but I DIDNOT agreeSo far no other phone call from themIf whole amount of $is refunded I am satisfied.Thanks.Dr*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and
find that this resolution is satisfactory to meI also wanted to let you know that Tony H*** the director of the company contacted me by phone yesterday August 23, at 10:31am Pacific Time and agreed to me give the full refund, but failed to emailed me back with confirmation of this comunication and verbal agreement but I will give follow up to that today
Sincerely,
*** ***
PLS has been consistently and effectively working on this license since the initial order Texas licensing is an extensive process and we are down to just a few simple items now Dr***'s prior PLS Consultant has been let go and during the end of her tenure her communication did slow
We have been in contact regularly with Dr*** since becoming aware of the communication delays and are serving him on protocol We expect the process to come to fruition very soon
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The last email I had with my agent was about how she received my information She never talked to me on the phone, nor asked me for the additional information I lost a job because the initial application wasn't even filed to get going I sent over everything that was asked of me, the emailed if everything was received She stated it was Then I didn't hear anything for weeks or more When I expressed my frustrations, she just stopped working on it all together The owner never answered my emails and his mailbox was full I do not believe they were there to make good on their work I felt like a sucker in a money stealing scheme
Sincerely,*** ***
*** ***
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The company should refund the whole amount for the South Carolina license since they failed to complete the process After two years, I still do not have a South Carolina licenseThe company never responded to my inquiries about the license or the processI do not feel I should pay them any amount for South Carolina licensure because they neglected to fulfil their contract with me.
Sincerely,
*** ***
Dr. *. ordered NC and SC licensure July 7, 2015. Work began immediately with data entry. A consultation was sent to the doctor to obtain necessary missing information on July 8, 2015. She returned the consultation on August 27, 2015. Her applications were completed and sent...
for her review and signature on August 28, 2015. She returned the signed applications on November 9, 2015 and both were immediately filed with the respective state medical boards. Dynamic and methodical verifications were requested November 11, 2015. USMLE and OH vol were reprocessed on January 20, 2016. Reference letters were finally sent in and her license in NC was issued March 18, 2016.PLS processed this license as obligated. South Carolina requires verification through the FCVS which can be a considerably longer process. Our system shows that all verifications outside of those obtained through the FCVS were processed January 20, 2016. We also show that the SC Board confirmed file completion on July 6, 2016 pending physician interview, which apparently never took place. Dr. *. did not pay PLS $1,500 as stated. She paid $550 for NC and $550 for SC. PLS completed NC. While all required work was completed for SC, we accept responsibility for communication deficiencies. Therefore we would be happy to offer a refund of half of the SC processing fee.
In reality, a good deal of work was completed on this project. PLS integrated the client's data into a usable licensing format, completed all necessary research to identify and locate the proper person responsible for each verification and each facility, prepared all verification paperwork and forms, completed all three applications, and requested all non-expiring verifications. So the workflow has been put in a position that should the doctor wish to proceed things can progress in a very efficient and timely manner.
This is something of a
surprise since PLS has been consistently working on Dr. [redacted]'s files
according to the following timeline:
8/24/15 - Order...
placed
and entered
8/25/15 - Introduction
correspondence sent to Dr. [redacted] notifying him of the next steps
8/28/15 - Notification
sent to Dr. [redacted] that the credit card provided was getting declined and that
PLS could begin work once payment was received.
9/2/15 - PLS asked by
Dr. [redacted] to try the credit card again.
9/8/15 - Credit card
payment went through
9/9/15 - Consultation
sent to the doctor to obtain information necessary to continue the process
9/25/15 - PLS notified
by doctor's wife that his existing license has been disciplined and asked that
PLS suspend work until the existing discipline can be resolved. J. H[redacted]
informed doctor's wife that we would retain the files under the current fee for
one year, until 9/25/16
10/9/15 - Notified by
Dr. [redacted] that he wished for PLS to resume work on his CT, NE, and CA
licenses.
10/10/15 - PLS continued
research work on the needed verifications
10/15/15 - Notification
sent to Dr. [redacted] that we still had not received the consultation back
10/28/15 - Consultation
came back from the doctor
11/12/15 - Initial
research work completed and doctor's file entered into queue for applications
completion
11/14/15 - Complaint
filed
No notice of
cancellation was sent to Dr. [redacted]'s PLS Consultant. We certainly could have produced a better outcome than this.