ComplaintsforKevin D Huff DDS, LLC

• Initial Complaint

  12/01/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On Tuesday November 16 2021 I had an appointment to have dental work done as iv had done there in the past. I was called in to the office where Dr Kevin Huff looked at the area to be addressed and said I won't be able to do this today he walked into the adjacent room where he had another patient which said to me that it was never his intention to adress my issue or they double booked and I got the short end of the stick. I went to the receptionist who stated that I owed 108.00 at which time I paid 25.00 down until insurance was billed. I feel like this was a planned confidence scheme.

  Business response

  12/21/2021

  I can confirm that this patient was scheduled for an emergency appointment with our office on November 16, 2021.  However, as the complaint states, “I had an appointment to have dental work done….”  In actuality, he had an appointment scheduled for an evaluation of his urgent problem, and I have confirmed with my office manager that he was not promised any treatment on that day.  As is the nature of an emergency, it is not convenient for any party involved.  Our intent was to assess his needs and then to reschedule for appropriate care and to address any life-threatening situation or to minimize quality of life compromise to the extent possible as time allowed.  The patient did not present with a life-threatening condition nor a condition that could not be reasonably rescheduled to provide appropriate care.  He is correct in that he was, in fact, “double-booked” because we never know the extent of a situation that will present when a patient reports an emergency, and we endeavor to schedule an assessment as soon as possible.  To have adequately addressed the condition with which he presented would have required displacing another appropriately scheduled patient who was here for a planned procedure.  While this particular individual may have expected immediate definitive care, this is not the way most dental practices operate.  We are not an urgent care clinic, as is clear from all of our marketing materials, discussions with patients, and website. 

  This patient was billed appropriately for the service that we rendered to him, a problem-focused evaluation.  In fact, we did not demand full payment at the time of service, as is our right as a fee-for-service practice; rather, we allowed him to make partial payment as a courtesy.  His accusation that this was a “planned confidence scheme” is both offensive and unjust.  My professional expertise is not free, and it is customary to charge for a professional opinion or diagnosis.  In fact, I provided an assessment of the problem after a physical examination and developed an appropriate treatment plan for how to manage the situation.  The fee for this service was $108.00, which is exactly what was billed. Therefore, a refund, in my opinion, is not justified.

   

  Respectfully,

   

  Kevin D. Huff, DDS, MAGD, DABOP

  Business response

  01/07/2022

  My previous response to this complaint was accurate and clear.  However, the person filing the complaint is now making incorrect statements about what is “customary” for a limited, problem-focused examination appointment.  Since the person filing this complaint is not a trained, licensed, and qualified dentist, I fail to see how he is able to make such claims about what is “customary” and about what diagnostic care should have been rendered.  I thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

  Regarding his statement,  “When at other dental care providers its customaryfor [sic] a provder to take an x-ray so an indepth [sic] diagnosis can be made….”:  Any healthcare professional prescribing radiographs (“x-rays”) is strongly encouraged to follow the ALARA Principle for ionizing radiation, which stands for As Low As Reasonably Achievable  (***********************************************  In this particular case, a recent dental radiograph that included the root and periapex of the tooth in question was available and reviewed; it was unlikely that significant periapical changes would have occurred in the few months between the time of that radiograph and the appointment in question, especially since the tooth was asymptomatic to percussion tests.  In my professional opinion, an additional radiograph was not indicated nor appropriate at the time of the appointment and would have constituted overtreatment, despite what may be “customary” in other dental practices with which the patient is familiar.  As in any healthcare situation, each problem and condition presents uniquely, requiring an individualized approach to diagnostic tests and imaging.

  Regarding the additional comment, “…I feel that the 108.00 I was charged for nothing to put it kindly was taken advantage of”:  This fee was for my time, my knowledge, my diagnosis, and my treatment recommendation (plan).  As a professional, it is entirely appropriate for me to charge for my knowledge and expertise.  Furthermore, I had overhead expenses for this patient visit:  operatory sanitization, instrument sterilization, infection control procedures, etc. Therefore, this fee was just and reasonable.

  It seems to me that the crux of this matter is that the patient’s expectations for immediate definitive treatment at the time he presented was not consistent with the type of appointment for which he was clearly scheduled.  No definitive treatment was promised at the time the appointment was scheduled; he was simply scheduled to ascertain the situation so that an appropriately scheduled appointment for appropriate treatment could be made and to rule out active infection and to address significant pain.  The patient declined pain.  It is true that we did not have time available that day at that time to complete the indicated procedure, which would take approximately 90 minutes—2 hours.  However, the decision not to take a radiograph had nothing to do with scheduled time, and no compromise to the quality of the examination was made.  It is also clear that the person filing this complaint has an incorrect perception of the value of a professional opinion.

  Thank you.  If it is necessary for this information to be published on the BBB website, please do so in its entirety so that both sides are fully represented and so the integrity of professional opinions can be maintained for other healthcare professionals. 

  In the spirit of good faith, pending receipt of the attached signed, witnessed, and dated Release of All Claims form, I will remit a refund for the disputed amount via check.  However, due to insurance involvement, we are required to notify the patient’s insurance company of the refund and must refund the insurance company for their portion paid ($39).  Therefore, the patient will receive a check for $69.00 upon receipt of the signed attached document.  While the Release of All Claims form indicates the full amount, it will be refunded in appropriate portions on his behalf.

   

  Kevin D. Huff, DDS, MAGD, DABOP

  Customer response

  01/07/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  When seen by other care providers in the past treatment only followed an xray. What can be taken away without attempting distract from the facts is that the care provider in question double booked which anyone can clearly ascertain that they decided my diagnosis before I was even seen and there for shows no intention weather critical or not for me to be treated. 
  [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** ********l

*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. ↩