Westlake Eyecare

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Business resorting to lying about the details of the business transaction showing corruption, dishonestly and the objective to only make money with absence of all business integrity and combat this Revdex.com filed complaintSee below the claims Business continues to resort on the only form they have that they could leverage regarding the permission for Optos Retinal Photos to check for Glaucoma, however patient is not denying that she didn’t agree to Optos Retinal Photos but was manipulated into having to opt for it since the business did not inform the patient prior that Dilation (that would cause day blurriness and inability to drive) or Optos Retinal Photos ($49) were at their officeFront desk personnel indicated that this requirement is across all eye doctors’ policySince patient was misled that this would be the scenario everywhere, she moved forward with conducting business with the opt in of Optos Retinal Photos due to the incapability to suffer vision blurriness for the day Business is falsely claiming that there was no requirement whatsoeverAs evidence by the complaints of other patients, this requirement is their own business practiceAs written evidence by their feedback to another patient, Dr [redacted] wrote on 12/19/to another patient on the online review website, “As a rule we require all patients to either undergo Dilation or the choose the Otpmap retinal photo as part of a comprehensive exam”Front desk personnel that voiced this requirement was first name, Courtney Business continues to make claims that the patient was thoroughly informed of the potential cost, time and visits that would be required in checking for GlaucomaBusiness disable full transparency in disclosing upfront that several visits would be required and charges would incurInstead this information was not only withheld but spoke against when the patient questioned prior to services for any costs and was told “no cost would incur”There are no written acceptance or informative communication from the doctor to patient with her understanding and willingness to do additional follow up checks that would be booked under medical simply because it was not disclosedInstead it was presented as “follow up” procedures to the initial glaucoma checks that was opted for in the beginning Business is falsely claiming another lie that, as a “rule”, they do not comment on costThe front desk person who specifically told patient on all counts (two) that there would be no charges on the subsequent visitThe staff member was first name, [redacted] Business falsely claiming of patient’s knowingness and willingnessThere was no knowingness or willingness whatsoever from the patient for any additional services other than an eye exam to receive updated prescriptionEach new service, was combatted with a “requirement” or no upfront declaration that the patient will undergo additional services and chargesAll was presented as part of or as follow ups of the desired eye examThe “Financial Responsibility Form” was attached to ONLY the Optos Retinal Photos formAnother attempt to manipulate the transactionFurthermore, patient did take upon herself to inquire before conforming to their instructions to return to the office for follow upSee Point Business falsely claiming that patient threaten the business for paymentThe business initiated conversation with the patient with the initial intent to rectify the patient’s dissatisfactionPatient, in response, did not demand but suggested the term of reimbursement of the extra charges that patient was not informed ofBusiness was remorseful of the unforeseen cost but negotiated to half of the amount and asked for the online website review to be removedEmail of Dr [redacted] initiating the conversation 11/29/2016, “Given the amount of and level of care provided what do you propose is a fair and equitable solution knowing our goal is for you to be happy and to post a positive yelp review.” Patient declined to assist the business in further manipulation of their business environment by doing a final reply on 12/1/16: ***Begin [redacted] “Dr [redacted] , In response to you asking me to remove the Yelp review prior to refund, I will continue to stick to my initial word which is to write a Yelp review in accordance to the outcomeI had offered to remove or edit the listing if the business took actual ACTION in correcting my customer satisfaction levelThe first outcome was receiving the message that nothing would be done, thus the review went liveNow you have reached out to me, after the fact, with the intent to satisfy me as a dissatisfied customerSomehow it evolved to you wanting the Yelp review removed so that I will not impact your customer baseNeither, how successful your business is or other customers have anything to do with my individual customer satisfactionIn all, I am getting more and more of the impression that you simply want to eliminate all threats to your business on YelpDr [redacted] , if this is truly about providing a positive customer satisfaction level to me, then please act upon itIf not, I urge you to understand that intentionally not being upfront patients, paying off patients to write a positive review to give a impression of your actual customer service level is corrupt and these are major internal threats you should address for business sustainability If there is no confirmation of refund, I do not mind whatsoever to accept that I was a victim of this type of business and move onRepeatedly, and repeatedly again, I will say I am ultimately dissatisfied with the business not being upfront.” ***End [redacted] Absolute shame should be on the business and business owner for lying and manipulating their own reaction to a dissatisfied customer on Yelp.comSuch business should NOT be in business due to its severe level of dis-integrity to the community

We do not deny we require Dilation or Optos According to generally accepted medical protocols a Comprehensive Eye Exam (what the patient came in for) requires the Drto look at the optic nerve and retinaWe deny she was forced or manipulated into spending additional dollars on the Optos Retinal Photo Dilation is covered by her insurance and offered at NO ADDITIONAL CHARGEThe patient willingly and knowingly consented to the Optos photo as an alternative to dilation.Dilation has been in practice for decades as a medical standard in Optomety - any adult who has had comprehensive eye exams throughout their life has been dilatedThe patient's idea that we use Dilation as "trick practice" to encourage Optos purchases is ridiculous this patient willingly and knowingly chose the newer technology (Optos Retinal Photo) out of convenience The patient did have the option to leave and find an office willing to forego testing her ocular health however they would have been unable to detect the signs of GlaucomaThere were ZERO services forced upon the patient post exam This patient showed signs of Glaucoma - a leading cause of vision loss in the worldAs such Dr [redacted] followed medical protocols and had the patient return to the clinic for additional testing and evaluation The patient chose (wisely given the potential severity of the situation) to return for the testing and evaluation During these visits the patient knowingly and willingly paid her Copay as is required by her insurance (this is a legal contract she has with her insurance carrier) The guidelines for payment are outlined in the Financial Responsibility Form the patient knowingly and willingly signed on each of her visits I attached the financial form that the patient signedThe Financial Responsibility Form explicitly states the patient is responsible for anything not covered by or required by insurance, including copays It also states that the patient is ultimately responsible for knowing their own insurance details As a rule our staff will never tell a patient they will never incur additional costs, especially those dictated by an insurance carrier as is the case with this patient This patient on two separate occasions demanded money under the threat she would attack our reputation online The patient explicitly said, give me money ($120) or I will leave a bad review We refused The patient then left a negative review and stated in the review she would remove said review if compensated Grudgingly we submitted to the extortion demand and agreed to pay $under her stated terms to remove the review Dates of Service:10/- Patient scheduled Eye Exam, elected to receive Optos Patient agrees to these charges.11/- Patient willingly returned for a Glaucoma evaluation Due to nature of visit (disease related) the exam was filed on medical insurance Vision insurance does not cover any health related items other than dilation Patient again agreed to services paid $medical copay (part of her contractual agreement with insurance carrier) Patient then scheduled second follow up appointment.11/-Patient willingly returned to go over results of a Glaucoma test that patient was referred out for & to do a follow up evaluation Pt again agreed to services and paid her $medical copay (part of her contractual agreement with insurance carrier).The codes filed to the patient's medical insurance were office visits & testing codes for a Glaucoma evaluation

[redacted] , I wanted to respond to the this email concerning this patient's complaintFirst, I would like to address the patient's complaints about the testing/additional services- The patient signed a form which specifically states that in order to perform a full eye exam we must check the health of the eye which is performed by either dilation (which is included in the exam cost) or the patient can opt to do the Optos Retinal photo which is an additional $ This test is not for Glaucoma but instead allows us to evaluate and diagnose several eye diseases, Glaucoma being one of them The patient chose the Optos Retinal photo and signed the form While this patient was seen, I (Dr [redacted] ), determined the patient had red flags for Glaucoma so we discussed the patient returning to the clinic to do more thorough testing specifically for Glaucoma The patient agreed and returned to the clinic two more times to do the testing & to go over the results of the testing The only charge the patient had for each of those office visits was her medical copay of $which we do not dictate or control That is a contract the patient has with her medical insurance and we collected her copay for the two office visits Addressing the Desired Settlement: The additional services are NOT required in order to receive an eye exam but the patient chose to have the one additional test of the Optos Retinal photo No one trapped the patient into getting any additional services that were not warranted As a doctor it is my job to evaluate, diagnose and treat when necessary and with this patient I did just that The patient showed signs of being a Glaucoma suspect so I followed medical guidelines in order to diagnose, manage and monitor the patient appropriately Please let me know if you need anything else from me Thanks so much, [redacted] [redacted] , O.D

After obtaining confirmation from the merchant services company I have agreed to provide a refund so long as the pt agrees to our Refund Agreement and confirms that this Revdex.com issue is fully resolved

While I cannot comment on any specific patient without their signing Revdex.com's HIPAA consent form I can confirm that we have not yet received written confirmation from First Data or VISA giving permission to make a cash or check refund on a credit card transaction - something explicitly forbidden in our Terms & Conditions (attached) Again the lack of a HIPAA consent restricts me from commenting on a specific patient's Rx.In a situation where the patient is not content with their frames we typically offer a re-style or remake at no extra charge within the first days Should we determine a refund is acceptable we will do so in adherence to our policies and not under duress

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: In an email where [redacted] states if I provide him with the information from FirstData that he requires to ensure his business does not go beyond the limitations of their contract, he would give the refund via checkI provided the proof he requested and he is not still not processing the refund.Again, I also have an email where he states the optometrist agrees that my prescription can not fit in the frames of the glassesI was not notified of this at the time of purchase and had I been informed,I would have chosen other frames at the timeThe business is in possession of the glassesA refund is warranted Regards, [redacted] ***

*** & ***,Thank you for sending this and allowing us the opportunity to respond. Unfortunately at this point I am unable to go into specifics due to our patient's HIPAA protections, however if she is willing to sign the HIPAA release you mentioned I will happily provide more detailed
information.What I can explain are the policies in place which would play a direct role in a situation like this one. First and foremost we are a medical office and all of the glasses we sell are considered custom made medical device (This is actually why you pay no sales tax on glasses or sunglasses purchased from an Optometry office). Considering all devices are custom made specific to the patients’ needs and wants we have a well-advertised "All Sales Final" policy. In fact all patients agree to this "All Sales Final" policy two times, once before services are rendered on our Financial Policy and then again after any purchase on their receipt, to ensure they are aware of it. In very rare circumstances we will decide to forego our "All Sales Final" policy with the sole purpose of patient satisfaction. Should we decide to refund a patient who made a credit card purchase we are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in our Merchant Account Agreement. These very clearly state that any refund must be made back to the original method of payment. I have attached the "Refunds" section of the agreement illustrating this point.While unlikely, the potential consequence for breaking these policies is account closure and blacklisting (meaning we would not be able to accept credit cards ever again). Even with a very low risk of actually happening that is simply much too big a risk to take. In a situation like this where we are willing to offer a refund but unable to due to extenuating circumstances outside our control, we would offer Store Credit in a final effort to satisfy our patient. I know this is a very generalized response to a very specific complaint, however without a HIPAA release I am unable to go into details of any patient interaction. I sincerely appreciate your time and attention to this matter. We value our good name and take our reputation quite seriously. If there is any additional information I can provide to help resolve this issue please do not hesitate to ask.Regards,*** *** *** | Operations*** (office)*** (fax)www.WestlakeEyecare.com

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because I have an email where *** agreed to the refund of $which I approve ofHis business is not at risk by refunding through various methods including check, credit card or cash as I spoke directly with his credit card processorHe is unfairly putting the responsibility on me by asking me as the consumer to get written letterhead notificationAttached is the written emailThe complaint is his company did not notify me at the time of purchase that my prescription lenses will not fit withing the frames I wanted to purchaseHad I been notified, I would have chosen other framesHe agrees a refund is warranted and is refuses to pay the refund amount by using unnecessary excuses.Regards,*** ***

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because I have an email where [redacted] agreed to the refund of $515 which I approve of. His business is not at risk by refunding through various methods including check, credit card or cash as I spoke directly with his credit card processor. He is unfairly putting the responsibility on me by asking me as the consumer to get written letterhead notification. Attached is the written email. The complaint is his company did not notify me at the time of purchase that my prescription lenses will not fit withing the frames I wanted to purchase. Had I been notified, I would have chosen other frames. He agrees a refund is warranted and is refuses to pay the refund amount by using unnecessary excuses.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
 
Business resorting to lying about the details of
the business transaction showing corruption, dishonestly and the objective to
only make money with absence of all business integrity and combat this Revdex.com filed complaint. See below the false claims. 
 
1.      1. Business continues to
resort on the only form they have that they could leverage regarding the
permission for Optos Retinal Photos to check for Glaucoma, however patient is
not denying that she didn’t agree to Optos Retinal Photos but was manipulated
into having to opt for it since the business did not inform the patient prior
that Dilation (that would cause day blurriness and inability to drive) or Optos
Retinal Photos ($49) were at their office. Front desk personnel indicated that
this requirement is across all eye doctors’ policy. Since patient was misled
that this would be the scenario everywhere, she moved forward with conducting
business with the opt in of Optos Retinal Photos due to the incapability to
suffer vision blurriness for the day.
 
2.      2. Business is falsely claiming
that there was no requirement whatsoever. As evidence by the complaints of other
patients, this requirement is their own business practice. As written evidence
by their feedback to another patient, Dr. [redacted] wrote on 12/19/2016 to
another patient on the online review website, “As a rule we require all patients
to either undergo Dilation or the choose the Otpmap retinal photo as part of a
comprehensive exam”. Front desk personnel that voiced this requirement was
first name, Courtney.
 
3.      3. Business continues to
make false claims that the patient was thoroughly informed of the potential
cost, time and visits that would be required in checking for Glaucoma. Business
disable full transparency in disclosing upfront that several visits would be
required and charges would incur. Instead this information was not only withheld
but spoke against when the patient questioned prior to services for any costs
and was told “no cost would incur”. There are no written acceptance or
informative communication from the doctor to patient with her understanding and
willingness to do additional follow up
checks that would be booked under medical simply because it was not
disclosed. Instead it was presented as “follow up” procedures to the initial
glaucoma checks that was opted for in the beginning.
 
4.      4. Business is falsely
claiming another lie that, as a “rule”, they do not comment on cost. The front
desk person who specifically told patient on all counts (two) that there would
be no charges on the subsequent visit. The staff member was first name, [redacted].
 
5.      5. Business falsely claiming
of patient’s knowingness and willingness. There was no knowingness or willingness
whatsoever from the patient for any additional
services other than an eye exam to receive updated prescription. Each new
service, was combatted with a “requirement” or no upfront declaration that the
patient will undergo additional services
and charges. All was presented as part of or as follow ups of the desired eye
exam. The “Financial Responsibility Form” was attached to ONLY the Optos Retinal
Photos form. Another attempt to manipulate the transaction. Furthermore,
patient did take upon herself to inquire before conforming to their instructions
to return to the office for follow up. See Point 3.
 
6.     6.  Business falsely claiming
that patient threaten the business for payment. The business initiated
conversation with the patient with the initial intent to rectify the patient’s
dissatisfaction. Patient, in response, did not demand but suggested the term of
reimbursement of the extra charges that patient was not informed of. Business
was remorseful of the unforeseen cost but negotiated to half of the amount and
asked for the online website review to be removed. Email of Dr. [redacted]
initiating the conversation 11/29/2016, “Given
the amount of and level of care provided what do you propose is a fair and
equitable solution knowing our goal is for you to be happy and to post a
positive yelp review.” Patient declined to assist the business in further
manipulation of their business environment by doing a final reply on 12/1/16:
 
[redacted]Begin[redacted]
“Dr. [redacted], 
 
In response to you
asking me to remove the Yelp review prior to refund, I will continue to stick
to my initial word which is to write a Yelp review in accordance to the
outcome. I had offered to remove or edit the listing if the business took
actual ACTION in correcting my customer satisfaction level. The first outcome
was receiving the message that nothing would be done, thus the review went
live. Now you have reached out to me, after the fact, with the intent to
satisfy me as a dissatisfied customer. Somehow it evolved to you wanting the
Yelp review removed so that I will not impact your customer base. Neither, how
successful your business is or other customers have anything to do with my
individual customer satisfaction. In all, I am getting more and more of the
impression that you simply want to eliminate all threats to your business on
Yelp. Dr. [redacted], if this is truly about providing a positive customer
satisfaction level to me, then please act upon it. If not, I urge you to
understand that intentionally not being upfront patients, paying off patients
to write a positive review to give a false impression of your actual customer
service level is corrupt and these are major internal threats you should
address for business sustainability.
 
If there is no
confirmation of refund, I do not
mind whatsoever to accept that I was a victim of this type of
business and move on. Repeatedly, and repeatedly again, I will say I am
ultimately dissatisfied with the business not being upfront.”
 
[redacted]End[redacted]
 
Absolute
shame should be on the business and business owner for lying and manipulating
their own reaction to a dissatisfied customer on Yelp.com. Such business should
NOT be in business due to its severe level of dis-integrity to the community.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: In an email where [redacted] states if I provide him with the information from FirstData that he requires to ensure his business does not go beyond the limitations of their contract, he would give the refund via check. I provided the proof he requested and he is not still not processing the refund.Again, I also have an email where he states the optometrist agrees that my prescription can not fit in the frames of the glasses. I was not notified of this at the time of purchase and had I been informed,I would have chosen other frames at the time. The business is in possession of the glasses. A refund is warranted. 
Regards,
[redacted]

While I cannot comment on any specific patient without their signing Revdex.com's HIPAA consent form I can confirm that we have not yet received written confirmation from First Data or VISA giving permission to make a cash or check refund on a credit card transaction - something explicitly forbidden in our Terms & Conditions (attached).  Again the lack of a HIPAA consent restricts me from commenting on a specific patient's Rx.In a situation where the patient is not content with their frames we typically offer a re-style or remake at no extra charge within the first 30 days.  Should we determine a refund is acceptable we will do so in adherence to our policies and not under duress.

1. We do not deny we require Dilation or Optos.  According to generally accepted medical protocols a Comprehensive Eye Exam (what the patient came in for) requires the Dr. to look at the optic nerve and retina. We deny she was forced or manipulated into spending additional dollars on the Optos Retinal Photo.  Dilation is covered by her insurance and offered at NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. The patient willingly and knowingly consented to the Optos photo as an alternative to dilation.Dilation has been in practice for decades as a medical standard in Optomety - any adult who has had comprehensive eye exams throughout their life has been dilated. The patient's idea that we use Dilation as "trick practice" to encourage Optos purchases is ridiculous.  this patient willingly and knowingly chose the newer technology (Optos Retinal Photo) out of convenience.  The patient did have the option to leave and find an office willing to forego testing her ocular health however they would have been unable to detect the signs of Glaucoma.2. There were ZERO services forced upon the patient post exam.  This patient showed signs of Glaucoma - a leading cause of vision loss in the world. As such Dr. [redacted] followed medical protocols and had the patient return to the clinic for additional testing and evaluation.  The patient chose (wisely given the potential severity of the situation) to return for the testing and evaluation.  During these visits the patient knowingly and willingly paid her Copay as is required by her insurance (this is a legal contract she has with her insurance carrier).  The guidelines for payment are outlined in the Financial Responsibility Form the patient knowingly and willingly signed on each of her visits.  I attached the financial form that the patient signed.3. The Financial Responsibility Form explicitly states the patient is responsible for anything not covered by or required by insurance, including copays.  It also states that the patient is ultimately responsible for knowing their own insurance details.  As a rule our staff will never tell a patient they will never incur additional costs, especially those dictated by an insurance carrier as is the case with this patient.  4.  This patient on two separate occasions demanded money under the threat she would attack our reputation online.  The patient explicitly said, give me money ($120) or I will leave a bad review.  We refused.  The patient then left a negative review and stated in the review she would remove said review if compensated.  Grudgingly we submitted to the extortion demand and agreed to pay $60 under her stated terms to remove the review.  5. Dates of Service:10/26 - Patient scheduled Eye Exam, elected to receive Optos.  Patient agrees to these charges.11/9 - Patient willingly returned for a Glaucoma evaluation.  Due to nature of visit (disease related) the exam was filed on medical insurance.  Vision insurance does not cover any health related items other than dilation.  Patient again agreed to services paid $60 medical copay (part of her contractual agreement with insurance carrier).  Patient then scheduled second follow up appointment.11/18 -Patient willingly returned to go over results of a Glaucoma test that patient was referred out for & to do a follow up evaluation.  Pt again agreed to services and paid her $60 medical copay (part of her contractual agreement with insurance carrier).The codes filed to the patient's medical insurance were office visits & testing codes for a Glaucoma evaluation.

[redacted], I wanted to respond to the this email concerning this patient's complaint. First, I would like to address the patient's complaints about the testing/additional services- The patient signed a form which specifically states that in order to perform a full eye exam we must check the health of...

the eye which is performed by either dilation (which is included in the exam cost) or the patient can opt to do the Optos Retinal photo which is an additional $49.  This test is not for Glaucoma but instead allows us to evaluate and diagnose several eye diseases, Glaucoma being one of them.  The patient chose the Optos Retinal photo and signed the form.  While this patient was seen, I (Dr. [redacted]), determined the patient had red flags for Glaucoma so we discussed the patient returning to the clinic to do more thorough testing specifically for Glaucoma.  The patient agreed and returned to the clinic two more times to do the testing & to go over the results of the testing.  The only charge the patient had for each of those office visits was her medical copay of $60 which we do not dictate or control.  That is a contract the patient has with her medical insurance and we collected her copay for the two office visits.     Addressing the Desired Settlement: The additional services are NOT required in order to receive an eye exam but the patient chose to have the one additional test of the Optos Retinal photo.  No one trapped the patient into getting any additional services that were not warranted.  As a doctor it is my job to evaluate, diagnose and treat when necessary and with this patient I did just that.  The patient showed signs of being a Glaucoma suspect so I followed medical guidelines in order to diagnose, manage and monitor the patient appropriately.   Please let me know if you need anything else from me.   Thanks so much, [redacted]     [redacted], O.D.

After obtaining confirmation from the merchant services company I have agreed to provide a refund so long as the pt agrees to our Refund Agreement and confirms that this Revdex.com issue is fully resolved.