White Pearl Medical Spa

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]

This complaint has been resolved satisfactorily by White Pearl Med Spa. Sent from my iPhone

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Their statements as to my reasons for complaining are falseI propose that we resolve things by the partial payment for that last session and the signing of updated release formSee attached
Regards,
*** ***

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
There are so many portions of this that is untrue.
Ex:
1.  My treatment area is a 1" x1" circle, so It was not larger than any size offered by living social. They specifically told me I could purchase directly through them which was what I did. Same price as LS. There was not extra " deal" given.
2.My complaints were never that the treatments were not effective (even though they weren't. I could easily add that as a second complaint). My complaint was the multiple areas that were not healing properly.
3.I was never asked to consult with a physician before this happened. Only when I requested a refund. Has I been offered this before, there is no reason I would not have gone.
4. There was never a time that I was told sun exposure was an issue. My foot had been covered any time I had exposure, which was once. This was a non issue and never brought up in conversation.
5. I wouldn't call what I received as "value in excess of what I received". What I received are branding marks that will not heal that I will deal with for the rest of my life. This is not normal scarring caused by lasers.
6. White Pearl never offered a refund. Just a consult after the fact. Like I said before, I feel uncomfortable returning. As you can see, there are many examples of how their story is not correct. This business does not practice in a way that the patient's best interest is priority. I am still requesting a refund.
Regards,
[redacted]

Ms. [redacted] came to our office referred by LivingSocial for Laser Tattoo Removal treatments. Since her tattoo was larger than the treatment size in the LivingSocial deal, and she wished to receive a treatment at that time although she had not purchased the promotion, she was extended a...

significant discount and she chose to move forward with the purchase of a package and treatment. After the 4th treatment, Ms. [redacted] contacted the office stating she felt that her last treatment did not respond and was concerned that it was not effective.
When she came in for her next scheduled appointment, on April 25th, her technician noticed some areas were not healing as evenly as she would like and recommended a product to help promote healing and prevent scaring and to reschedule to allow more time for healing. Ms. [redacted] chose to purchase the recommended product. Ms. [redacted] was re-scheduled in May to consult with the doctor as well as be treated, if determined appropriate.
Also, at that last appointment, on April 25th, it was also evident that there was significant sun exposure to the treatment area, which is recommended against throughout the treatment plan, as it prevents healing and promotes scaring to the area. The photos were reviewed by the doctor and it was determined that some areas were not healing evenly and confirmed the sun exposure to the area.
Ms. [redacted] chose to cancel her May appointment, the next communication we received was Ms. [redacted] being concerned with being scarred and wanting a refund. We informed Ms. [redacted], "In order to discuss any action moving forward you will need to be seen by the doctor." She refused, therefore we were unable to proceed or discuss any options available, including offering complimentary treatment if scarring occurred or any discussion of a possible refund. The status of the treatment area in April did not show what Ms. Frezel claimed the situation in June was. Additionally with the passing of time, it would be likely there was a change to the treatment area.
Attached is the communication between Ms. [redacted] and the office as well as the office policies and consents signed by Ms. [redacted]. These clearly state the policy about there being no refunds, as well as the potential for scarring. These items were accepted and signed by Ms. [redacted] prior to receiving any treatment.
Ms. [redacted] has received services valued in excess of the amount she paid and chose to purchase the recommended product after agreeing to the refund policy. She canceled her appointment when she was to be seen by the doctor as well as refused to come in to been seen as required to discuss and action moving forward following her complaint and request for a refund.

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]

On January 16th, 2014 Ms. [redacted] arrived for her appointment clearly stressed as she later confirmed. Upon Check-in, one of our staff members asked her, as a courtesy, if she could observe the treatment (this was due to limitations recently placed on the scheduled treatment provider who was...

also instructed to phone her patients and inform them prior to their arrival, which she did not do) and Ms. [redacted] told her no. The manager, [redacted], discussed the matter with [redacted], the scheduled treatment provider, reminding her of her treatment limitations and that she was to inform her patients of this,  requesting she now explain this to Ms. [redacted]. [redacted] informed [redacted] that she did not want to explain it to her because Ms. [redacted] was in a “bad mood” and asked [redacted] to do so. [redacted] discussed the matter with Ms. [redacted] who was clearly unhappy with the limitations on [redacted] (which did not affect her treatment in any way) stating she wanted her privacy and to just relax alone with [redacted]. [redacted] provided alternate options for her to receive treatment that would alleviate the “privacy” concern, including the treatment completed by another technician who was not required to have an observer, to consult with the doctor on a different day or to have the doctor observe [redacted] on a different day, or to have the treatment provided by the doctor. These were not acceptable to her, repeatedly stating that she expected to have the treatment by, and be alone with, [redacted]. During [redacted]’s attempts to explain the limitations and alternate options, Ms. [redacted] began and continued to yell and swear at [redacted] while maintained a calm and professional demeanor for over 13 minutes, as witnessed by other staff, clients, and recorded on video. Ms. [redacted] asked if the issue was that [redacted] was not licensed, [redacted] informed her that was not the issue, [redacted] was a licensed Esthetician but that there were other limitations from our Medical Director. [redacted], along with all of our service providers at the time maintained a esthetics license, not individual licensing for laser, light, and radio frequency technology/treatments. Technicians are only able to provide these types services with the approval of the medical doctor overseeing their treatments as the medical director. For various reasons, which would have been inappropriate to disclose to Ms. [redacted], [redacted] was limited to the procedures and patients she was able to treat. [redacted] repeatedly denied her ability to discuss any reasoning for the limitations as it would not be professional and did not state or imply anything beyond the fact that [redacted] would be required to have an observer in the room, [redacted] offered herself for this role since Ms. [redacted] knew and was familiar with [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] was clearly displeased with not being provided the details resulting in the limitations placed on [redacted] and wanted to speak with Dr. [redacted]. [redacted] offered a complimentary appointment to consult with the doctor but informed her that Dr. [redacted] would not be able to provide her with these details either, including over the phone if we were to call her at that time. During this conversation, [redacted] even interrupted to say she did not want to complete the treatment because of Ms. [redacted]’s yelling about [redacted]’s abilities and not wanting to discuss it further, Ms. [redacted] made the demand that she receive the treatment that day and by [redacted].  Ms. [redacted] ultimately prioritized her treatment being performed by [redacted] and accepted the requirements for [redacted] to perform her treatment. While displeased with the options provided, Ms. [redacted] chose to have the treatment done that day by [redacted], with the additional requirements. During the treatment Ms. [redacted] repeatedly apologized for her behavior towards [redacted], for yelling, and being so rude to [redacted]. She explained that she had a horrible day and wasn’t expecting a change. She told [redacted] she was handling it very nicely and she knew it was not [redacted]’s doing, so she continued to apologize for attacking the messenger. [redacted] apologized for her not being made aware of the situation earlier, and certainly did not want to add any more stress to an already unpleasant day and prior to a treatment that can be quite uncomfortable. The two talked pleasantly throughout the treatment, with [redacted] apologizing for asking her about herself (referencing goings on in her personal life the two had discussed various times before) and Ms. [redacted] requesting to continue the conversation as it helped distract from the discomfort of her treatment. At the end of the treatment [redacted] offered a product to rectify the unpleasantness, miscommunication, and any inconvenience experienced during her visit, which she accepted. Upon leaving both apologized again, Ms. [redacted] stated she would have to rethink future appointment if such a situation were to happen again and asked [redacted] to relay her inconvenience to Dr. [redacted]. On February 17th, we received an email with her letter attached followed by a hardcopy in the mailbox, as did the previous owner of the office. It was discussed that although policies state no refunds, she chose to have the treatment completed, received services and products in excess of what was paid, we would offer a partial refund as a final attempt to appease her. This was detailed in a response letter discussing the terms of providing a partial refund which was mailed out on February 21st , 2014. The terms included a Refund Request and Release form to be signed, notarized, and returned to us. Ms. [redacted] had the option to sign and have them notarized then mail back to us, or schedule a time that she could come into the office to sign and we would provide a notary at no cost to her. These forms were included with the letter mailed on Feb 21st. We received no response of any kind until notified about the complaint by the Revdex.com. In addition to the facts stated above, between the time of Ms. [redacted]’s visit and the letter she originally sent, [redacted] became no longer employed with the company. Information regarding that and other documentation pertaining to this matter is public record through government agencies.

The bottom line is that Ms. [redacted] was relieved of many duties due to misconduct and misappropriation of resources. At no time did we ever claim that she was uncertified or unlicensed since that was not the case. Ms. [redacted] was not restricted from performing the procedure the complainant consented to receive on that day; due to previous misconduct and inappropriate communication, she was required to be observed while she perform this complainant's  procedure. There seems to be some confusion on the requirements for our providers, all of our providers are licensed as required. The only restrictions pertaining to this, or any other matter during this time, were that restrictions were placed on [redacted], and [redacted] alone, based on a history of misconduct. All statements referenced as being from, or a response by, Ms. [redacted] are false.
On March 13, 2014, we received a periodic (random) inspection by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Compliance Division which we passed with no corrections needed. This proof of inspection is on display in the office, as required by law.
Based on the "friendship" between the complainant and our former employee, [redacted], it has been made clear this is an additional attempt to cause harm to the company following the dissolution between the company and Ms. [redacted].