Paradise Animal Clinic LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2014/08/04) */ This medical case is regarding a 2-year-old female dog that was brought in to our practice with a complaint of not eating well for days along with some vomitingThe owner mentioned that the pet was spayed two weeks earlierThis was the owner's first visit to our practice The physical examination of this dog revealed a temperature and a physical examinationNo outward sounds of illness could be detectedAlthough our clinic did not perform the previous spay surgery, most spay patients would be back eating within 3-days of surgery so the loss of appetite at this stage was worrisome The attending veterinarian recommended blood tests since no outward clinical signs were foundA complete blood count, serum chemistry profile and electrolyte blood tests were performedA stool sample to evaluate for intestinal parasites was also completedThe final blood test performed was a Pancreatic Lipase examination to detect signs of pancreatitis (which can cause vomiting and inapettance in a dog.) All tests were completed within minutes in the clinicThe results of all tests were and these findings were relayed to the pet ownerA medication called Mirtazapine was prescribed as an appetite stimulant and to decrease nausea in the pet Upon receiving the bill for the pet ($including the examination and the medication), the owner remarked at how high the bill was and that she was refusing to pay for the laboratory tests performedThe owner paid for the initial examination, signed a promissory and left the practice Our practice routinely issues estimates for surgical procedures, hospitalization or any extensive workupWe also provide estimates for any other procedures if the owner requests oneIn this case, no estimate was requestedOur practice does participate with pet insurance companiesMost standard pet insurance coverage occurs when the client pays the bill to the practice and the insurance company reimburses the client for the covered costs The unfortunate situation with this case is that our practice acted in good faith in doing a thorough examination and woof this patientThe owner did not alert us to any financial concerns prior to blood work being performedIn the 12-month period following the procedure, where monthly invoices were sent out, the owner never once attempted to communicate with the doctor or the practice about her concerns of being unfairly charged Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2014/08/05) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The clinic and doctor did not provide medication or a stool sampleThe high price charged was applied after The blood draw was completedThe doctor never once stated this would be a $chargeThis was an unfair business practice that even a mechanic would never doIt is not good business practice to provide a service without the customer being aware of such a high costBlood tests are not the only method of assessment that can be usedIf I would have been aware of this ridiculously high cost, I would have refused the testThe clinic refuses to accept pet insurance, which makes it incredibly difficult to pay for such high feesIt was a very sneaky way to do businessWe should have been told about charges before administering testsALL other vets inform pet owners of the fees before being chargedWhen the visit was over and we complained about not being told of this prior to the test being performed, the staff was unwilling to accept payments and unwilling to work with us on repaymentThey made me sign a promissory note Rather than keeping a customer and caring for a patient, they were more concerned about this bottom line and erring paid! It was unfair and unreasonable way of doin good businessIn the months (was not 12) following, we did make contact with the clinic and refused to payWe filed a complaint with the consumer protection agency as well, due to the poor business practiceWe came in and paid the bill in full due to making a promissory commitment, however we still believe we should be refunded the amount charged for the test, which was never a cost we were informed of prior to being administered not did we ever approveIt is only fair that we receive compensation for the poor business practice this doctor hasPerhaps they will be fair with others too after thisOne can only hope

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/08/04) */
This medical case is regarding a 2-year-old female dog that was brought in to our practice with a complaint of not eating well for 4 days along with some vomiting. The owner mentioned that the pet was spayed two weeks earlier. This was...

the owner's first visit to our practice.
The physical examination of this dog revealed a normal temperature and a normal physical examination. No outward sounds of illness could be detected. Although our clinic did not perform the previous spay surgery, most spay patients would be back eating within 3-4 days of surgery so the loss of appetite at this stage was worrisome.
The attending veterinarian recommended blood tests since no outward clinical signs were found. A complete blood count, serum chemistry profile and electrolyte blood tests were performed. A stool sample to evaluate for intestinal parasites was also completed. The final blood test performed was a Pancreatic Lipase examination to detect signs of pancreatitis (which can cause vomiting and inapettance in a dog.)
All tests were completed within 30 minutes in the clinic. The results of all tests were normal and these findings were relayed to the pet owner. A medication called Mirtazapine was prescribed as an appetite stimulant and to decrease nausea in the pet.
Upon receiving the bill for the pet ($325.34 including the examination and the medication), the owner remarked at how high the bill was and that she was refusing to pay for the laboratory tests performed. The owner paid for the initial examination, signed a promissory and left the practice.
Our practice routinely issues estimates for surgical procedures, hospitalization or any extensive workup. We also provide estimates for any other procedures if the owner requests one. In this case, no estimate was requested. Our practice does participate with pet insurance companies. Most standard pet insurance coverage occurs when the client pays the bill to the practice and the insurance company reimburses the client for the covered costs.
The unfortunate situation with this case is that our practice acted in good faith in doing a thorough examination and work-up of this patient. The owner did not alert us to any financial concerns prior to blood work being performed. In the 12-month period following the procedure, where monthly invoices were sent out, the owner never once attempted to communicate with the doctor or the practice about her concerns of being unfairly charged.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2014/08/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The clinic and doctor did not provide medication or a stool sample. The high price charged was applied after The blood draw was completed. The doctor never once stated this would be a $300.00 charge. This was an unfair business practice that even a mechanic would never do. It is not good business practice to provide a service without the customer being aware of such a high cost. Blood tests are not the only method of assessment that can be used. If I would have been aware of this ridiculously high cost, I would have refused the test. The clinic refuses to accept pet insurance, which makes it incredibly difficult to pay for such high fees. It was a very sneaky way to do business. We should have been told about charges before administering tests. ALL other vets inform pet owners of the fees before being charged. When the visit was over and we complained about not being told of this prior to the test being performed, the staff was unwilling to accept payments and unwilling to work with us on repayment. They made me sign a promissory note . Rather than keeping a customer and caring for a patient, they were more concerned about this bottom line and erring paid! It was unfair and unreasonable way of doin good business. In the months (was not 12) following, we did make contact with the clinic and refused to pay. We filed a complaint with the consumer protection agency as well, due to the poor business practice. We came in and paid the bill in full due to making a promissory commitment, however we still believe we should be refunded the amount charged for the test, which was never a cost we were informed of prior to being administered not did we ever approve. It is only fair that we receive compensation for the poor business practice this doctor has. Perhaps they will be fair with others too after this. One can only hope.