Sugarcreek Veterinary Clinic

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint I [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]The response by the Sugarcreek veterinary clinic was inaccurateAt first they had the same opinion as I do and gave me the exact information I provided prior to me pointing out that they had already exceeded the time frame they had describedThen they were all of a sudden saying well its not that dangerous and the month is the real deadlineBelieve me they denied the [redacted] and stated protocol was after months it required a test due to dangers to my pet and when I stated its now the 8th month and you gave them in the 7th the did a complete The [redacted] states that the FDA labeled the medication as needed to be prescribed by a licensed physician this is due to the dangers associated with the misuseThe [redacted] states the test is to be administered at the 6th month and also states there is the possibility for a severe reaction that could be harmful or even fatalso my pet was provided a potentially lethal controlled substance by a vet tech at Sugarcreek veterinary clinic and even though my pet is ok, she was in fact put in harms way by the clinic and they do not care nor take any responsibility for the mistakeWhen a healthy animal is given a medication that requires you to first issue a test then you would assume the test would be given at the proper time though in this instance was not I had to take my pet to another vetmy pet had passed the agreed upon time line laid forth the the [redacted] and was under the care of the sugarcreek veterinary clinic the [redacted] was administered the dog was at home under no medical supervision and could have suffered internal damages by the adult heart wworm had there been one present Regards, [redacted]

On March 31, 2016, a complaint was filed against the Sugarcreek Veterinary Clinic regarding our heartworm preventative protocol. Heartworm disease is defined as having an adult heartworm in the body. The larval stage of the disease is transmitted via a mosquito vector which then develops in the skin...

and bloodstream of the pet. After 6-7 months, the larval stage matures into adulthood. The adult heartworm resides in the respiratory tract of the patient and is the stage of the disease veterinarians test for. Side effects of heartworm disease range from being asymptomatic to respiratory symptoms such as coughing and lethargy. A high adult worm burden leads to "caval syndrome" where the patient suffers from heart related issues. Heartworm preventative is aimed at killing the larval stage of the disease as it is maturing in the blood stream. The [redacted] states in the "Current Canine Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Heartworm (Dirofilarla Immitis) Infection In Dogs" that dogs older than 7 months of age should be screened for heartworm disease via an antibody test such as the Idexx 4Dx, the test of choice at our clinic. Because of this, we recommended the patient have a heartworm test before administering treatment at 8 months of age. At this point, the owner declined this testing and was then offered a waiver to decline the test. This was also declined. The owner deemed us negligent for giving [redacted] at 7 months of age. [redacted] (Ivermectin) is a low dose macrocytic lactone drug which is aimed at killing the larval stage of the disease and causes a "slow kill" to the adult stage of the disease. Because of this, [redacted]s recommended as the first step in the protocol to the treatment of a dog infected with heartworm disease to prevent further Infection and kill any Immature larval stage of the disease that the adult worm is producing ("Heartworm Treatment Guidelines for the Pet Owner", [redacted]y). We explained this to the owner and that we were sorry for any misunderstanding. However, we refused to pay him for his anguish since the dog was in no way at risk or suffering because of our recommendations.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint I[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]The response by the Sugarcreek veterinary clinic was inaccurate. At first they had the same opinion as I do and gave me the exact information I provided prior to me pointing out that they had already exceeded the time frame they had described. Then they were all of a sudden saying well its not that dangerous and the 8 month is the real deadline. Believe me they denied the [redacted] and stated protocol was after 6 months it required a test due to dangers to my pet and when I stated its now the 8th month and you gave them in the 7th the did a complete 180. The [redacted] states that the FDA labeled the medication as needed to be prescribed by a licensed physician this is due to the dangers associated with the misuse. The [redacted] states the test is to be administered at the 6th month and also states there is the possibility for a severe reaction that could be harmful or even fatal. so my pet was provided a potentially lethal controlled substance by a vet tech at Sugarcreek veterinary clinic and even though my pet is ok, she was in fact put in harms way by the clinic and they do not care nor take any responsibility for the mistake. When a healthy animal is given a medication that requires you to first issue a test then you would assume the test would be given at the proper time though in this instance was not I had to take my pet to another vet. my pet had passed the agreed upon time line laid forth the the [redacted] and was under the care of the sugarcreek veterinary clinic the [redacted] was administered the dog was at home under no medical supervision and could have suffered internal damages by the adult heart wworm had there been one present.
Regards,
[redacted]