ComplaintsforSavannah Veterinary Emergency Clinic

• Initial Complaint

  02/06/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  on Sunday Jan 29th, 2023, we took my dog to this emergency vet. she was breathing funny and making odd noises.. she had not eaten or drank anything for two days. upon arrival we were taken into a room and a tech came in and did an analysis and took vitals. then she said the dr recommended they do lab work to see if theres any gut issues or whatever going on. My dog was also excessively drooling. i said there is something going on.. she sounded congested or something weird. they kept telling me her lungs sounded clear. they did lab work.. stated one of her lab tests was elevated but thats normal in an old dog. they gave her a shot for nausea and said she had a GI issue and would prob clear up soon. The next day we made and appt with her regular dr because the symptoms were worsening to the point she sounded like she couldn't breath. upon arrival at our vet they immediately did an xray and came in and told us she has a cancer mass in her stomach.. it has spread to her lungs and she is in extreme pain. We had to make the difficult decision to put her down right then and there. They sent my dog home with a wayyy off base diagnosis and she suffered for a whole extra day because of their negligence. I have called everyday to speak to someone.. have been told office manager is on maternity leave and chief of medicine is apparently too busy to call me back as well. 4 days after my first phone call to them, chief of med called me from an unknown number and didn't leave a callback. they seem to not take this very seriously at all. I would like an investigation into the negligence of this company and i want a full refund of my $550 dollars. i had to fork out $500 the next day for her vet and cremation visit. I am extremely upset that no one at this business has called me back.

  Business response

  02/09/2023

  ID #: ********.   
  
  This letter is in response to a client complaint made after emergency veterinary care was provided to a patient named “*****” on January 29th, 2023. The owner complaint is based around a perceived service issue, accused lack of return of phone call, and financial motivations as the owner is requesting a refund erroneously and the financial burden fell solely on the pet owner. The owner inappropriately accuses the business of negligence and with the owner’s permission we would be happy to provide full medical records for additional supporting documentation as well as the multiple documents displaying client approval signatures for care provided. 
  
  The patient presented for emergency care after an approximately 15 hour duration of decreased appetite, decreased drinking, lethargy and vomiting per the owner. The owner noted the patient was “completely normal” the day before. In addition to the above complaints, with further questioning, the owner noted the patient had made some abnormal respiratory sounds at home and was “snorting” in the exam room. The owner had concerns the pet had aspirated after vomiting. A physical examination was performed with the findings to include no obvious thoracic abnormalities (heart or lungs) and a tense abdomen was noted on palpation, in addition all organ systems being examined and reported upon appropriately. Blood work with a pancreatitis test was performed which revealed an unremarkable CBC, elevated ALKP, elevated Chol, and a normal cPL snap test. 
  
  The patient history, physical examination findings, and bloodwork results were then discussed in person by the DVM with the owner. Differentials diagnosis (list of possible causes) and potential etiology (what causes a distinct disease) for this patient at that time included infectious, inflammatory, foreign body obstruction, toxin, neoplasia (benign - not cancer or malignant - cancer), or metabolic diseases (hepatic, renal, pancreatic, endocrine, or other). At that time the owner approved an anti-nausea injection only and declined the full recommended outpatient care. It was recommended, and documented,  for the owner to follow-up with the primary care veterinarian “ASAP for further care this week if no prior concerns”. 
  
  Unfortunately for *****, a 14.5 year old canine, the differential of neoplasia was discussed on January 29th at her visit with the emergency clinic. If the owner was interested in further diagnostics at that time and if comparable care, as she noted was performed the next day by her primary care veterinarian, was performed on emergency basis it would have included the following; radiographs $400, humane euthanasia $55, and after care of the remains (private cremation $225 - not collected by the emergency clinic). The owner noted in her complaint she was required to “fork out” an additional $500 when in fact further care on an emergency basis would have been discussed for an additional fee of approximately $650-700. Those fees would have been in addition to the previously necessary physical examination and recommended baseline blood work.
  
  The owner received a callback the day after her initial complaint (call received Tuesday January 31st and returned Wednesday February 1st) in order to discuss the above information with her and that at no point will a refund be issued for the care provided. A second call, Thursday February 2nd, was performed with a voicemail being left indicating that she would receive her next callback Wednesday February 7th (due to complaint no additional call was made as owner will receive this via email). Yes, the owner is correct that our practice manager is out on maternity leave and that the Chief of Medicine is traveling for a continuing education conference. Both of which are perfectly acceptable and despite being at a conference there were still multiple attempts by the Chief of Medicine at contacting the owner to discuss the case, offer condolences, and reduce the numerous calls a day that were placed by her on January 31st and February 1st. When contact was not possible, a clear timeline of future contact was made.
  
  We acted with best intentions to treat this owner and patient from the beginning of her visit to her numerous inflammatory complaints. She is unfounded in her accusation of negligence and there are no plans to issue a refund in this matter. Again, with owner permission we will provide the documentation that supported our decision. If further consultation is needed with regards to this matter our legal counsel will handle further contact. 

  Customer response

  02/10/2023

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

   Complaint: ********

  I am rejecting this response because:  that is an out and out LIE!! The vet tech told us the bloodwork was good and she had  an elevated number one one of them, but it’s normal for a day her age… and she was sick so it’s normal.  At NO a point did they say she had neoplasia .. cancer.. a mass.. anything!! They said she had a GI infection! i will continue to report these people to ******** and anyone who will listen! 

  Regards,

  ***** *******

  Business response

  03/23/2023

  Please see the previous response for case information and recommendations for the owner moving forward. In response to the additional owner comment, we have reviewed the primary care veterinarian records. The primary care veterinarian records do not provide a definitive diagnosis and only comment on the following  "X-ray 2 View/ Interpretation; Mass in rear abd; Opacities in lungs" which unfortunately is not enough information to change our initial response. As stated in the SVEC record under the "Assessment" portion: Vomiting - intra-GI causes (infectious, inflammatory, FBO, toxin, neoplasia, other) vs extra-GI causes (liver disease, kidney disease, pancreatic disease, endocrine disease, other) was discussed. In addition, the discharge stated  "Please call your regular veterinarian's office ASAP to schedule to have ***** rechecked" at which time further diagnostics could then be performed.
  
  This letter is in response to a client complaint made after emergency veterinary care was provided to a patient named “*****” on January 29th, 2023. The owner complaint is based around a perceived service issue, accused lack of return of phone call, and financial motivations as the owner is requesting a refund erroneously and the financial burden fell solely on the pet owner. The owner inappropriately accuses the business of negligence and with the owner’s permission we would be happy to provide full medical records for additional supporting documentation as well as the multiple documents displaying client approval signatures for care provided.
  
  The patient presented for emergency care after an approximately 15 hour duration of decreased appetite, decreased drinking, lethargy and vomiting per the owner. The owner noted the patient was “completely normal” the day before. In addition to the above complaints, with further questioning, the owner noted the patient had made some abnormal respiratory sounds at home and was “snorting” in the exam room. The owner had concerns the pet had aspirated after vomiting. A physical examination was performed with the findings to include no obvious thoracic abnormalities (heart or lungs) and a tense abdomen was noted on palpation, in addition all organ systems being examined and reported upon appropriately. Blood work with a pancreatitis test was performed which revealed an unremarkable CBC, elevated ALKP, elevated Chol, and a normal cPL snap test.
  
  The patient history, physical examination findings, and bloodwork results were then discussed in person by the DVM with the owner. Differentials diagnosis (list of possible causes) and potential etiology (what causes a distinct disease) for this patient at that time included infectious, inflammatory, foreign body obstruction, toxin, neoplasia (benign - not cancer or malignant - cancer), or metabolic diseases (hepatic, renal, pancreatic, endocrine, or other). At that time the owner approved an anti-nausea injection only and declined the full recommended outpatient care. It was recommended, and documented, for the owner to follow-up with the primary care veterinarian “ASAP for further care this week if no prior concerns”.
  
  Unfortunately for *****, a 14.5 year old canine, the differential of neoplasia was discussed on January 29th at her visit with the emergency clinic. If the owner was interested in further diagnostics at that time and if comparable care, as she noted was performed the next day by her primary care veterinarian, was performed on emergency basis it would have included the following; radiographs $400, humane euthanasia $55, and after care of the remains (private cremation $225 - not collected by the emergency clinic). The owner noted in her complaint she was required to “fork out” an additional $500 when in fact further care on an emergency basis would have been discussed for an additional fee of approximately $650-700. Those fees would have been in addition to the previously necessary physical examination and recommended baseline blood work.
  
  The owner received a callback the day after her initial complaint (call received Tuesday January 31st and returned Wednesday February 1st) in order to discuss the above information with her and that at no point will a refund be issued for the care provided. A second call, Thursday February 2nd, was performed with a voicemail being left indicating that she would receive her next callback Wednesday February 7th (due to complaint no additional call was made as owner will receive this via email). Yes, the owner is correct that our practice manager is out on maternity leave and that the Chief of Medicine is traveling for a continuing education conference. Both of which are perfectly acceptable and despite being at a conference there were still multiple attempts by the Chief of Medicine at contacting the owner to discuss the case, offer condolences, and reduce the numerous calls a day that were placed by her on January 31st and February 1st. When contact was not possible, a clear timeline of future contact was made.
  
  We acted with best intentions to treat this owner and patient from the beginning of her visit to her numerous inflammatory complaints. She is unfounded in her accusation of negligence and there are no plans to issue a refund in this matter. Again, with owner permission we will provide the documentation that supported our decision. If further consultation is needed with regards to this matter our legal counsel will handle further contact.
  
  Thank you for uploading our final response. ***** ***** DVM Julie Harelson DVM ******* **********, Practice Manager 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩