Yarrow Bay Plastic Surgery

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Once again for the FOURTH back-and-forth exchange, DrM [redacted] ’s January 4, response fails to address the issues outlined in the original complaint against her and Yarrow Bay Plastic SurgeryI have clearly addressed these concerns to which she has ignoredDrM [redacted] ’s failure to offer any remedy for her breach of contract combined with her inaccurate and inconsistent responses are a testament to her unethical business practice In her January 4, response, DrM [redacted] uses HIPPA as her excuse for her failure to address the issue of her breach of contractThis is about the eighth excuse offered in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the factual evidence indicative of M [redacted] ’s breach of contract and poor business ethicI have already provided evidence that proves DrM [redacted] ’s unethical breach of contractAnd, this claim is based on a business issue with DrM [redacted] ’s unethical business practicesTherefore, it is not an issue with which M [redacted] can hide behind the protection of my personal information per HIPPAThe mention of HIPPA is another irrelevant excuse for DrM [redacted] to avoid addressing scrutiny for her unethical business practices Whoever authored the January 4, response on behalf of DrM [redacted] is either confused or ill-informedI scheduled my long awaited implant exchange in complete compliance with DrM [redacted] ’s instructions and not past any alleged “expiration date.” In fact, I scheduled the implant exchange consultation in August and the last scar revision was performed in October Contrary to what was written in her January 4, response, I met with M [redacted] to discuss breast implant exchange to correct her errors before the one year time period had lapsed from that last scar revisionAs corroborated in DrM [redacted] ’s handwritten notes, M [redacted] explicitly instructed that I wait “at least one year from the last scar revision for her to perform the implant exchange.” The verbiage clearly indicates that I was not only well within DrM [redacted] ’s recommended time frame, but that I scheduled my implant exchange consultation appointment early (prior to the one year from last scar revisionVerbiage is importantparticularly in light of the fact that it was/is written by DrM [redacted] ’s hand, thus lacking any ambiguity as to the terms of the agreement BREACHED BY M [redacted] Moreover, DrM [redacted] ’s handwritten notes(provided with my original complaint) PROVE that DrM [redacted] and I spoke on the phone and she agreed to “waive surgeon fees on breast implant exchange, but patient would still be responsible for anesthesia, supplies and cost of implants.” And, “patient has been given quote for breast implant exchange.” In an earlier response, M [redacted] claimed not to have given a quote, once that was proven to be another statement, she is now alleging I waited too longDrM [redacted] is desperately trying to divert attention away from her liability for breach of contract with one lie or excuse after another; all of which have been disproven by tangible and factual evidenceThe facts speak for them self A reasonable person in the same position would interpret and conclude that DrM [redacted] ’s words and actions show DrM [redacted] ’s (1) serious intent in her offer; (2) definite terms outlined and instructed by DrM [redacted] ; and (3) communication of DrM [redacted] ’s offer to meThere is no doubt that DrM [redacted] ’s offer and my acceptance and consideration does indeed constitute the formation of a legally binding contract to which DrM [redacted] unlawfully breached It is highly unethical business practice for DrM [redacted] to rescind an irrevocable offer of a promise relied upon in good faith by a compliant patient without appropriating or proposing a suitable remedy for the said breach as to lessen the financial burden incurred by DrM [redacted] ’s depravityDrM [redacted] ought to be held accountable for her failure to fulfill her legally binding promise DrM [redacted] ’s response ends with the following incomplete and unsubstantiated sentence: “Consequently, based on her own narrative, her request for a refund is meritless on several independent grounds.” It is unclear what conclusions that author has claimed to drawMoreover, there are or were no reasons or “several independent grounds” provided to suggest that a request for a refund (for DrM [redacted] ’s breach of contract) to be an inappropriate remedy considering DrM [redacted] ’s unlawful breach of contract In Washington State, a contract is formed whenever a patient accepts and agrees to a cosmetic surgeon’s offer that a procedure that will be performedIf the doctor fails to execute the contract as agreed upon, the patient is entitled to recoverable damages for breach of contractAnd, this breach of contract can be considered a form of medical malpractice Currently, I am not seeking an entire refund for the problematic and erroneous breast augmentation performed by DrM [redacted] Nor am I (presently) seeking the amount in damages that it will cost me to have another cosmetic surgeon perform an implant exchange to correct her errorsAt this point, I am not seeking the “total offset” of damages (which is the standard applied by the Court with jurisdiction); I am merely seeking damages in costs imposed upon me by DrM [redacted] ’s breach of agreementThis offer to mitigate damages sustained by DrM [redacted] ’s breach of contract will not extend beyond January 21, 2016.Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Re: Response to DrM [redacted] ’s Response to my Complaint against Yarrow Bay Plastic Surgery (No [redacted] ) In a seemingly desperate attempt to deflect from the actual issues addressed in the complaint filed with the Revdex.com, DrM [redacted] ’s response artfully avoids addressing the issues of fact addressed in my complaintWhat’s more, DrM [redacted] ’s response regarding my complaint is littered with significant inaccuracies and misleading and unsupported conclusions Inaccuracies in DrM [redacted] /Yarrow Bay’s Response I did file a complaint with the Department of Health’s Medical Quality Assurance CommissionHowever, the Commission did NOT “determine that my claim had no merit” as stated in DrM [redacted] ’s responseThat is a blatantly statement In actuality, prior to amending and clarifying the complaint, the Commission presumed that the claim was a “billing issue.” Upon clarification of the indisputable issues of fact regarding DrM [redacted] ’s unprofessional and unethical conduct, the Commission has reopened the claimTo clarify, at no time whatsoever did the Commission consider claims against DrM [redacted] to be “meritless,” and to suggest otherwise is deliberately misleading and dishonest of M [redacted] According to the Revdex.com mission statement, Revdex.com investigates and addresses customers concerns and “calls out and addresses substandard marketplace behavior.” For DrM [redacted] to superciliously and arbitrarily suggest that the issues addressed in my complaint “do not fall within the purview of the Revdex.com” directly contradicts the mission statement of the Revdex.com The Revdex.com and the Department of Health’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission are two completely separate entities that operate independently of one anotherAnd thus, whether or not a complainant files a complaint of professional misconduct with one or more organization is absolutely irrelevant Respondent’s Aversion of Facts for which Claim is Based In her response, DrM [redacted] fails to address any relevant issues in which the claim is basedInstead of actually addressing/responding to the pertinent issues of the complaint made against her, DrM [redacted] ’s response haphazardly attempts to divert attention away from the real issues raised, by falsely alleging “a continuing pattern of harassment of DrM [redacted] by Ms [redacted] .” Once again, there is no evidence to support this allegation by DrM [redacted] because no such evidence exists However, there is substantial, clear and convincing evidence indicative of DrM [redacted] ’s unjust breach of contract DrM [redacted] ’s Breach of Agreement To clarify, the purpose of DrM [redacted] ’s offer to perform an implant exchange and waive surgeon’s fee’s was to allow DrM [redacted] the opportunity to improve/correct errors made in original operation in efforts to achieve a proportionate, symmetric, and overall desired look that I communicated but did not obtain from DrM [redacted] ’s augmentationThe augmentation resulted in two different sized implants creating noticeable asymmetry, incorrect size, and one unsightly and deformed hypertrophic scar which required two separate revisionsThis scar is noticeably higher than the other side and easily irritated by certain clothingThe noticeable asymmetry in DrM [redacted] ’s point of incision of either side does not offset the asymmetry created by the two different implant sizesNeedless to say, the results of DrM [redacted] ’s work are very embarrassing and humiliating, and need to be corrected It was/is DrM [redacted] ’s responsibility to communicate effectively prior to performing a surgical procedureUpon rereading DrM [redacted] ’s chart notes, her and I both thought we were “on the same page” with respect to the desired outcomeHowever, it is DrM [redacted] ’s duty as a medical provider to know that she and patients are “on the same page” and to know there is in fact a “mutual understanding.” As evident in the provided chart notes, DrM [redacted] ’s recognition of the catastrophic disconnect in communication is the reason for her offering to “waive surgeon fees for implant exchange procedure.” The primary issue of fact presented in the complaint against DrM [redacted] to be considered is whether DrM [redacted] unjustly breached our agreement in her failure to perform an implant exchange as she offered Under Washington State law, an offer is an intention to be contractually bound upon the acceptance of another party(RCW 62A.2-206)In other words, person A (the “promisor”) offers certain terms to Person B (the “promisee”) as an offerPerson B can then accept or decline the offer made by person AConsideration is when person A makes a promise, and person B makes a promise in return, something of value In DrM [redacted] ’s response to my complaint, she suggests that our agreement lacks the contractual element of consideration, and thus it is unenforceable: “any statements DrM [redacted] may have made regarding waiving her fees if she performed additional surgery do not amount to an enforceable contract, particularly in light of consideration.” In applying Washington State law to the present complaint, DrM [redacted] (promisor) made an OFFER to me (promise) to “waive surgeon fees for an implant exchange [Upon] wait[ing] at least one year from revision [which was in September 2014] to have implant exchange; however patient would still be responsible for the cost of supplies ($1,250), cost of implants ($1,500) and anesthesia ($630)” ( DrM [redacted] ’s handwritten notes5/9/and 5/16/2014)I ACCEPTED this offer The contractual (and legally binding) element of consideration absolutely exists in my acceptance of DrM [redacted] ’s offer to “waive surgeon’s fee for an implant exchange procedureDrM [redacted] ’s (the “promisor’s”) CONSIDERATION is that she would collect $3,for the cost of supplies, implants, and anesthesia for the implant exchange procedure upon waiting at least one year from last scar revisionAnd, my (the promisee’s) CONSIDERATION is that I would wait at least one year from last scar revision, do my “research,” and pay $3,in costs/fees At NO time prior to my full compliance and satisfactions of the conditions set forth in DrM [redacted] ’s offer did DrM [redacted] ever attempt to revoke her offer A reasonable person in the same position would interpret and conclude that DrM [redacted] ’s words and actions show DrM [redacted] ’s (1) serious intent in her offer; (2) definite terms outlined and instructed by DrM [redacted] ; and (3) communication of DrM [redacted] ’s offer to meThere is no doubt that DrM [redacted] ’s offer and my acceptance and consideration does indeed constitute the formation of a legally binding contract to which DrM [redacted] unlawfully breached It is highly unethical business practice for DrM [redacted] to rescind an irrevocable offer of a promise relied upon in good faith by a compliant patient without appropriating or proposing a suitable remedy for the said breach as to lessen the financial burden incurred by DrM [redacted] ’s depravityDrM [redacted] ought to be held accountable for her failure to fulfill her legally binding promise Thank you for your assistance in resolving this dispute Sincerely [redacted] EnclDrM [redacted] ’s Handwritten Chart Notes Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Re: Response to Dr. M[redacted]’s Response to my Complaint against Yarrow Bay Plastic Surgery (No. [redacted])
In a seemingly desperate attempt to deflect from the actual issues addressed in the complaint filed with the Revdex.com, Dr. M[redacted]’s...

response artfully avoids addressing the issues of fact addressed in my complaint. What’s more, Dr. M[redacted]’s response regarding my complaint is littered with significant inaccuracies and misleading and unsupported conclusions.
Inaccuracies in Dr. M[redacted]/Yarrow Bay’s Response.
I did file a complaint with the Department of Health’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission. However, the Commission did NOT “determine that my claim had no merit” as stated in Dr. M[redacted]’s response. That is a blatantly false statement.
In actuality, prior to amending and clarifying the complaint, the Commission presumed that the claim was a “billing issue.” Upon clarification of the indisputable issues of fact regarding Dr. M[redacted]’s unprofessional and unethical conduct, the Commission has reopened the claim. To clarify, at no time whatsoever did the Commission consider claims against Dr. M[redacted] to be “meritless,” and to suggest otherwise is deliberately misleading and dishonest of M[redacted].
According to the Revdex.com mission statement, Revdex.com investigates and addresses customers concerns and “calls out and addresses substandard marketplace behavior.” For Dr. M[redacted] to superciliously and arbitrarily suggest that the issues addressed in my complaint “do not fall within the purview of the Revdex.com” directly contradicts the mission statement of the Revdex.com.
The Revdex.com and the Department of Health’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission are two completely separate entities that operate independently of one another. And thus, whether or not a complainant files a complaint of professional misconduct with one or more organization is absolutely irrelevant.
Respondent’s Aversion of Facts for which Claim is Based.
In her response, Dr. M[redacted] fails to address any relevant issues in which the claim is based. Instead of actually addressing/responding to the pertinent issues of the complaint made against her, Dr. M[redacted]’s response haphazardly attempts to divert attention away from the real issues raised, by falsely alleging “a continuing pattern of harassment of Dr. M[redacted] by Ms. [redacted].” Once again, there is no evidence to support this allegation by Dr. M[redacted] because no such evidence exists.
However, there is substantial, clear and convincing evidence indicative of Dr. M[redacted]’s unjust breach of contract.
Dr. M[redacted]’s Breach of Agreement.
To clarify, the purpose of Dr. M[redacted]’s offer to perform an implant exchange and waive surgeon’s fee’s was to allow Dr. M[redacted] the opportunity to improve/correct errors made in original operation in efforts to achieve a proportionate, symmetric, and overall desired look that I communicated but did not obtain from Dr. M[redacted]’s augmentation. The augmentation resulted in two different sized implants creating noticeable asymmetry, incorrect size, and one unsightly and deformed hypertrophic scar which required two separate revisions. This scar is noticeably higher than the other side and easily irritated by certain clothing. The noticeable asymmetry in Dr. M[redacted]’s point of incision of either side does not offset the asymmetry created by the two different implant sizes. Needless to say, the results of Dr. M[redacted]’s work are very embarrassing and humiliating, and need to be corrected.
It was/is Dr. M[redacted]’s responsibility to communicate effectively prior to performing a surgical procedure. Upon rereading Dr. M[redacted]’s chart notes, her and I both thought we were “on the same page” with respect to the desired outcome. However, it is Dr. M[redacted]’s duty as a medical provider to know that she and patients are “on the same page” and to know there is in fact a “mutual understanding.”  As evident in the provided chart notes, Dr. M[redacted]’s recognition of the catastrophic disconnect in communication is the reason for her offering to “waive surgeon fees for implant exchange procedure.”
The primary issue of fact presented in the complaint against Dr. M[redacted] to be considered is whether Dr. M[redacted] unjustly breached our agreement in her failure to perform an implant exchange as she offered.
Under Washington State law, an offer is an intention to be contractually bound upon the acceptance of another party. (RCW 62A.2-206). In other words, person A (the “promisor”) offers certain terms to Person B (the “promisee”) as an offer. Person B can then accept or decline the offer made by person A. Consideration is when person A makes a promise, and person B makes a promise in return, something of value.
In Dr. M[redacted]’s response to my complaint, she suggests that our agreement lacks the contractual element of consideration, and thus it is unenforceable: “any statements Dr. M[redacted] may have made regarding waiving her fees if she performed additional surgery do not amount to an enforceable contract, particularly in light of consideration.”
In applying Washington State law to the present complaint, Dr. M[redacted] (promisor) made an OFFER to me (promise) to “waive surgeon fees for an implant exchange…. [Upon] wait[ing] at least one year from revision [which was in September 2014] to have implant exchange; however patient would still be responsible for the cost of supplies ($1,250), cost of implants ($1,500) and anesthesia ($630)” ( Dr. M[redacted]’s handwritten notes5/9/2014 and 5/16/2014). I ACCEPTED this offer.
The contractual (and legally binding) element of consideration absolutely exists in my acceptance of Dr. M[redacted]’s offer to “waive surgeon’s fee for an implant exchange procedure. Dr. M[redacted]’s (the “promisor’s”) CONSIDERATION is that she would collect $3,380 for the cost of supplies, implants, and anesthesia for the implant exchange procedure upon waiting at least one year from last scar revision. And, my (the promisee’s) CONSIDERATION is that I would wait at least one year from last scar revision, do my “research,” and pay $3,380 in costs/fees.
At NO time prior to my full compliance and satisfactions of the conditions set forth in Dr. M[redacted]’s offer did Dr. M[redacted] ever attempt to revoke her offer.
A reasonable person in the same position would interpret and conclude that Dr. M[redacted]’s words and actions show Dr. M[redacted]’s (1) serious intent in her offer; (2) definite terms outlined and instructed by Dr. M[redacted]; and (3) communication of Dr. M[redacted]’s offer to me. There is no doubt that Dr. M[redacted]’s offer and my acceptance and consideration does indeed constitute the formation of a legally binding contract to which Dr. M[redacted] unlawfully breached.
It is highly unethical business practice for Dr. M[redacted] to rescind an irrevocable offer of a promise relied upon in good faith by a compliant patient without appropriating or proposing a suitable remedy for the said breach as to lessen the financial burden incurred by Dr. M[redacted]’s depravity. Dr. M[redacted] ought to be held accountable for her failure to fulfill her legally binding promise.
Thank you for your assistance in resolving this dispute.
Sincerely
[redacted]
Encl. Dr. M[redacted]’s Handwritten Chart Notes
Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:



Once again for the FOURTH back-and-forth exchange, Dr. M[redacted]’s January 4, 2016 response fails to address the issues outlined in the original complaint against her and Yarrow Bay Plastic Surgery. I have clearly addressed these concerns to which she has ignored. Dr. M[redacted]’s failure to offer any remedy for her breach of contract combined with her inaccurate and inconsistent responses are a testament to her unethical business practice.
In her January 4, 2016 response, Dr. M[redacted] uses HIPPA as her excuse for her failure to address the issue of her breach of contract. This is about the eighth excuse offered in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the factual evidence indicative of M[redacted]’s breach of contract and poor business ethic. I have already provided evidence that proves Dr. M[redacted]’s unethical breach of contract. And, this claim is based on a business issue with Dr. M[redacted]’s unethical business practices. Therefore, it is not an issue with which M[redacted] can hide behind the protection of my personal information per HIPPA. The mention of HIPPA is another irrelevant excuse for Dr. M[redacted] to avoid addressing scrutiny for her unethical business practices.
Whoever authored the January 4, 2016 response on behalf of Dr. M[redacted] is either confused or ill-informed. I scheduled my long awaited implant exchange in complete compliance with Dr. M[redacted]’s instructions and not past any alleged “expiration date.” In fact, I scheduled the implant exchange consultation in August 2015 and the last scar revision was performed in October 2014.
Contrary to what was written in her January 4, 2016 response, I met with M[redacted] to discuss breast implant exchange to correct her errors before the one year time period had lapsed from that last scar revision. As corroborated in Dr. M[redacted]’s handwritten notes, M[redacted] explicitly instructed that I wait “at least one year from the last scar revision for her to perform the implant exchange.”
The verbiage clearly indicates that I was not only well within Dr. M[redacted]’s recommended time frame, but that I scheduled my implant exchange consultation appointment early (prior to the one year from last scar revision. Verbiage is important. particularly in light of the fact that it was/is written by Dr. M[redacted]’s hand, thus lacking any ambiguity as to the terms of the agreement BREACHED BY M[redacted].
Moreover, Dr. M[redacted]’s handwritten notes(provided with my original complaint) PROVE that Dr. M[redacted] and I spoke on the phone and she agreed to “waive surgeon fees on breast implant exchange, but patient would still be responsible for anesthesia, supplies and cost of implants.” And, “patient has been given quote for breast implant exchange.” In an earlier response, M[redacted] claimed not to have given a quote, once that was proven to be another false statement, she is now alleging I waited too long. Dr. M[redacted] is desperately trying to divert attention away from her liability for breach of contract with one lie or excuse after another; all of which have been disproven by tangible and factual evidence. The facts speak for them self.
A reasonable person in the same position would interpret and conclude that Dr. M[redacted]’s words and actions show Dr. M[redacted]’s (1) serious intent in her offer; (2) definite terms outlined and instructed by Dr. M[redacted]; and (3) communication of Dr. M[redacted]’s offer to me. There is no doubt that Dr. M[redacted]’s offer and my acceptance and consideration does indeed constitute the formation of a legally binding contract to which Dr. M[redacted] unlawfully breached.
It is highly unethical business practice for Dr. M[redacted] to rescind an irrevocable offer of a promise relied upon in good faith by a compliant patient without appropriating or proposing a suitable remedy for the said breach as to lessen the financial burden incurred by Dr. M[redacted]’s depravity. Dr. M[redacted] ought to be held accountable for her failure to fulfill her legally binding promise.
Dr. M[redacted]’s response ends with the following incomplete and unsubstantiated sentence: “Consequently, based on her own narrative, her request for a refund is meritless on several independent grounds.”
It is unclear what conclusions that author has claimed to draw. Moreover, there are or were no reasons or “several independent grounds” provided to suggest that a request for a refund (for Dr. M[redacted]’s breach of contract) to be an inappropriate remedy considering Dr. M[redacted]’s unlawful breach of contract.
In Washington State, a contract is formed whenever a patient accepts and agrees to a cosmetic surgeon’s offer that a procedure that will be performed. If the doctor fails to execute the contract as agreed upon, the patient is entitled to recoverable damages for breach of contract. And, this breach of contract can be considered a form of medical malpractice.
Currently, I am not seeking an entire refund for the problematic and erroneous breast augmentation performed by Dr. M[redacted]. Nor am I (presently) seeking the amount in damages that it will cost me to have another cosmetic surgeon perform an implant exchange to correct her errors. At this point, I am not seeking the “total offset” of damages (which is the standard applied by the Court with jurisdiction); I am merely seeking damages in costs imposed upon me by Dr. M[redacted]’s breach of agreement. This offer to mitigate damages sustained by Dr. M[redacted]’s breach of contract will not extend beyond January 21, 2016.Sincerely,[redacted]