ComplaintsforEast End Veterinary Medical Centre

• Initial Complaint

  01/21/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Delivery Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  EEVMC lied about state law in order to try to make a profit. Details are in the attached emails.

  Business response

  01/25/2023

  I am responding here to the complaint referenced above. The person that registered this complaint, *** **** **** ****** is a client at East End Veterinary Medical Centre (EEVMC), and was last seen at our clinic on January 4, 2021. *** ***** called us recently to request that we administer vaccines to her cat ***** without giving her an annual exam. My staff informed her that our policy at EEVMC is to require annual exams in order to maintain a Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) as set forth in the PA Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and the PA Rules of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians. In order to maintain a valid VCPR, there are several conditions that need to be followed, one of which states: "the veterinarian is acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal by virtue of an examination of the animal or medically
  appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept".

  Small animal veterinary practices (those that service dogs and cats) do not visit premises the way that our large animal counterparts do (those that service horses, cows, and other farm animals). Rather, clients bring their pets to us for "timely visits" as required by the state regulations. I believe that M** ****** complaint revolves around the interpretation of the term "timey visits". In our email exchange with *** *****, we provided her with the wording of the state regulations. It is standard practice amongst private small animal veterinary practices to require at least annual visits to maintain the VCPR. At EEVMC, we have 5 veterinarians ranging in clinical experience from 2 to 30 years, all of whom have worked at various practices throughout our careers. All of the practices at which we have collectively worked have also required annual visits to maintain the VCPR. In our interaction with *** *****, we told her that our policy at EEVMC is to require annual visits, and since her last visit was over 1 year ago, we told her that we would not vaccinate her cat without the annual exam.

  *** ***** has claimed in writing that "EEVMC lied about state law in order to try to make a profit". Our policy is in keeping with the standard practices of virtually all small animal practices. Although the regulations do not specifically require "annual" visits, as a group, small animal veterinarians use "one year" as a reasonable interval to satisfy the "timely visits" requirement. *** ***** correctly pointed out that some practices will offer "vaccine clinics", in which vaccines are given without clients being charged for an exam. It is more often the animal shelters that provide these vaccine clinics, which are non-profit organizations. For those few private practices that do provide vaccine clinics, the veterinarians administering the vaccines are required to assess the health of the animals prior to giving the vaccines. So in reality, these veterinarians are performing examinations (or should be), but are not charging the client for that service. As a private for-profit business that pays a living wage and health benefits to our employees, it is within our right to charge for the services that we provide.

  If *** ***** would prefer to take her cat to a facility that provides vaccine clinics, I would recommend that she take her cat to the Humane Animal Rescue for this service. But to claim that we "lied about state law to make a profit" is entirely inaccurate, especially in light of the fact that our policy is in keeping with state regulations and is shared by virtually all other private small animal practices.
  I am happy to discuss this matter further.
  Sincerely,
  
  
  Kenneth ** F****** DVM
  Managing Veterinarian, East End Veterinary Medical Centre

  Customer response

  01/25/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

  My response to the business is below my name.
  
  Regards,
  
  **** **** *****

   

  Your very long-winded reply somehow managed to not actually provide any real counterpoint whatsoever to my complaint, and merely doubled down on your dishonesty with an incredibly verbose string of irrelevancies (such as how many veterinarians you have, as if that has anything to do with anything I said).  I am impressed at the sheer amount of effort that was put into pretending to have any sort of valid response to what I said.
  
  
  Just because something is "standard practice" does not in any way imply that it is the same as the law.  Nor, for that matter, does it in any way imply that it's the correct or ethical thing to do.  I didn't ask if it's standard practice or not.  I told you that your office lied about the law, because your office did lie about the law, and that's unethical.  The following quote is what your office sent me in writing:
  
  
  
  "I don't have enough information here to pull up your file, however we do require that animals have an exam with a doctor every year in order to be seen for technician appointments and other reasons (this is a legal  requirement of the state of Pennsylvania)."
  
  
  I stand by exactly what I wrote in my later email:
  
  
  
  "[Y]our office both A) outright lied, claiming that examinations are required 'every year' by law, when in fact this is not anywhere in the law, so that you can exploit customers who don't know any better, and B) chooses to very selectively and self-servingly interpret the law, by claiming that your expensive visit / examination fees are a legal requirement, when in fact even a cursory examination free of charge is perfectly legal (by your own admission), and the expensive version is merely your office's misleading interpretation.
  
  
  "You may claim that a yearly exam is appropriate in terms of animal welfare, but of course, you are aware that there are many poor pet owners who really need and care about their pets, and cannot afford expensive vet fees.  You also know that this is better than the animals being out in the street or put down at the pound because people can't afford to take care of them.  So, your office is actively making it harder to be a responsible pet owner, and making it more likely that animals will be harmed, by preying on the ignorance of disadvantaged people and tricking them into paying you more than they need to."
  
  
  As for this bit that you wrote....
  
  
  
  "In our interaction with [name omitted for privacy], we told her that our policy at EEVMC is to require annual visits, and since her last visit was over 1 year ago, we told her that we would not vaccinate her cat without the annual exam."
  
  
  ....That's factually inaccurate.  You actually did not know which customer I was until after I submitted the BBB complaint, since my email address does not contain my full legal name, and one of your office workers even specifically mentioned not having enough information about me to look up my case (quoted above).  I find it interesting that you chose to lie about such a small detail, given that it doesn't even support your case.
  
  
  It is indeed "within [your] right" to charge whatever you want for the services you provide.  It is, however, absolutely not within your right to lie about the law.
  
  
  Your recommendation of a different vet comes much too late.  I already made an appointment with that vet before I heard a word from you.  I don't need your recommendations.  What I want is for you to stop lying to and preying on people, which I already stated before and shouldn't have to repeat.
  
  
  
  I had to debate whether it was even worth my time to respond to such a complete failure of a response, but I decided, for the record, I would like to point out exactly how and why your response is so inappropriate and useless.  You got caught -- it would be better for your dignity and reputation at this point to just admit that you got caught, and fix your policy.  I have no interest in "discuss[ing] this matter further" if you can't even acknowledge basic facts.
  

*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. ↩