Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. 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.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/09/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On 12/12/24 we rushed ***** ***** to Ocean State Veterinary Specialists in ******************** ***** had presented kidney stones. The Vet sent him back home after stabilization, only to be rushed back again. The Vet then proceeded to turn ***** from a him to a her. They gave him a fluid overload , which then resulted in the Vet having to giving ***** a blood transfusion. I was so beyond upset at their negligence. Then, they sent him home again, stating that everything would be OK. It was not, by far. ***** was so lethargic and would not take his food or meds. The Vet talked me into giving ***** a esophageal tube to help administer his food and meds. I asked if this was the best option and would he be OK? They said, "Absolutely." ***** died less than 24 hours later and $15,000. It's not the money. They lied..... He suffered at their hands. If you have a pet: PLEASE, NEVER BRING THEM TO OCEAN STATE VETERINARY SPECIALISTS IN **************, R.I. I WILL TELL ALL MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO NEVER BRING YOUR FAMILY PETS THERE. TY ** FROM ** ** I told them that I knew in my heart the catheter was placed wrong, as when I fed Mitty ***** he was squirming so uncomfortably. The Doctor said that she did respond, but called the wrong number. Then she said, did you receive my flowers? I said no. That was ANOTHER LIE by this place. I blame them for *****'s death ans that is the bottom line. This place is just the worst.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/19/2025

  I am writing as the chief of staff at ****, and a critical care specialist. I have reviewed the record for this patient and spoken with the doctors involved. This was a truly heartbreaking case for everyone involved. ***** ***** presented initially with a urinary obstruction and was found to have bladder stones. Initially the owners chose medical management but when the obstruction recurred, ***** ***** had surgery to remove the stones and also to remove the narrowing of his urinary outflow tract to prevent future obstructions (as the owners referred to changing him to a her). This is a routine surgery performed in cats with repeated life-threatening urinary obstructions. Unfortunately, ***** ***** had underlying heart disease. During the process of treating urinary obstruction, intravenous fluids must be administered. ***** ***** originally had high kidney values from his obstruction and fluids are the treatment. The fluid therapy revealed his heart disease by causing him to develop "fluid overload" (just meaning he got fluid in his lungs). This was not negligence or a mistake, it was a very unfortunate thing that his kidneys needed the fluids that his heart could not handle. ***** ***** also bled a fair amount from his traumatized bladder (from the obstruction) and the surgery. He also had a urinary tract infection which further inflamed his bladder. The doctors did try to send him home where they thought he might be more comfortable and more likely to eat, but the owners were unable to give him the medications he needed, and ***** ***** started to feel ill again. He had a last hospitalization where a nasogastric tube was placed with the plan that he would go home with the tube, allowing the owners to give him liquid medications through the tube. Unfortunately, ***** ***** collapsed at home and by the time he was brought to the hospital his heart had stopped. He did not respond to CPR. We completely understand how distraught these people are - they gave their cat every chance to get better, trusting the hospital through extensive, and intensive medical care. But ***** ***** had underlying heart disease. The severe systemic challenges his body went through over those 2 weeks, including urinary obstructions with acute kidney injury, fluid therapy, surgery, nasogastric nutritional support, and a severe urinary tract infection that was resistent to the initial antibiotics. We believe he had an acute cardiac event, although we cannot know the actual cause of his death without an autopsy. The team here worked very hard to help ***** ***** get through this. They communicated with these owners extensively throughout, and the owners approved of every planned step along the way. We all wish the outcome had been different, but we cannot identify anything that was done in hospital that was not appropriate or in ***** *****'s best interest. I am attaching the records from ***** *****'s multiple visits, which demonstrate the tremendous amount of work, effort, and thought that went into ******************* I hope in time these owners can move past their need to blame the hospital and recognize that this was just a really tragic combination of problems that their cat just couldn't fight through. They did right by their cat, and deserved a better result, but we do not always control how a body responds to treatment, we can only do our best. 

  I am attaching the medical records, in order for the ******************** to see the extent of the care that was provided. But these should not be posted publicly. Thank you. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/03/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  My do was seen twice at ocean state in the last week, over 1300, labs, xrays and ultrasound all came back normal and the dig. was suspected back pain and anxiety. we were brushed over so many times as my dog was in clear distress. we ended up bringing him to tufts and they did a urinalysis and proven UTI. my dog suffered for over 10 days with symptoms of panting, pure discomfort, restlessness, and just not himself.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/15/2024

  I have not heard from the business in response to my complaint.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/16/2024

  Tator, an 11 year old male castrated Chihuahua mix, was presented to the **** emergency service on 4/27/24 with a complaint of 5 days of acting painful. He had been seen twice by a local *********** facility, where they found Tator to have back or neck pain, and started treatment with a sedative and a pain medication. Tator also had high liver enzymes on bloodwork. He was referred to **** for an abdominal ultrasound.
  
  On presentation to ****, ***** was found to have repeatably demonstrated pain on palpation of his spine. Bloodwork was repeated and showed that the liver enzymes had normalized. An ultrasound exam was performed, which showed two liver masses, but no other abnormalities. Notably, the bladder appeared normal, with no wall thickening, or particulate debris evident in the urine to suggest an infection. Radiographs (xrays) of ****** spine were taken to evaluate for any obvious causes of pain. The xrays were normal. At this time, the causes of ****** discomfort were thought to include intervertebral disk disease (most likely), muscle sprain, or less likely cancer. The owners were offered sedated liver aspirates (to determine whether the liver masses were cancerous) as well as hospitalization for pain control but the owners declined both. Tator was sent home on continued rest and pain medication, as well as an anti-inflammatory.
  
  Tator was brought back to **** on 4/29 due to continued restlessness and pain signs. At this visit, no back or neck pain was identified. The causes of the restlessness were thought to include cognitive dysfunction (form of canine senility), some other neurologic disease, or pain. The owners were offered a neurologic consult, which might include an MRI of the brain and spinal cord. They declined the consult. Tator was sent home on a different pain medication and an anti-anxiety medication. The owners were advised that a consultation with a neurologist was strongly recommended.
  
  On 4/30, the owners took Tator to Tufts Veterinary Center for a consultation with the neurology service. It is unclear why they chose to do this, when they declined the neurology consultation at ****. It is possible that there were no outpatient consults available here, and that the doctor had recommended overnight hospitalization to get an inpatient consult the next day. Tator is a very anxious dog, and the owners may have been reluctant to hospitalize him.
  
  The neurology service at Tufts identified that ***** had neck pain, and they found that Tator had reduced coordination in his hindlimbs, which could indicate a spinal cord problem such as intervertebral disk disease. Because ****** signs seemed to be more anxiety/restlessness than pain, they elected to run a urinalysis. While it has not been reported commonly in dogs, humans with urinary tract infections can develop confusion and anxiety, and this appears to happen occasionally in dogs. Tator was sent home on a stronger pain medication and continued anxiety medications, with a plan to reevaluate Tator in a month. Later, the urinalysis revealed some bacteria. For this reason, antibiotics were started to treat a possible urinary tract infection.
  
  I have spoken with the neurologist involved in ****** care at *****. At the time that the owners lodged their BBB complaint, ***** had been treated for less than a week. In addition to the antibiotics, the Tufts doctors continued the pain and anxiety medications to address the neck pain. It is not clear at this time whether treating the possible urinary tract infection is going to resolve ****** symptoms longterm. The plan is that they will start to taper the pain and anxiety medications after the antibiotics are complete and see if the signs return.
  
  Anxiety and pain signs are not typical symptoms of urinary tract infection, especially in the absence of other symptoms (frequent urination, blood or odor in the urine). Tator was found to have neck or back pain on multiple dates, by multiple doctors, including the doctors at *****. Treating the pain was absolutely the appropriate thing to do first, and is what Tufts would have done too if ***** had been seen there initially. The ultrasound was appropriate given the liver enzyme elevations and pain signs. The xrays were appropriate given the back pain. Once it was clear that ***** was not improving, a neurology consult was recommended but declined by the owners. There was nothing done inappropriately at ****, and the order of treatment decisions was reasonable. We do not agree that any refund of fees is in order.
  
  We truly hope that ****** signs resolve on antibiotics, as that is his best chance at a good quality of life. But his symptoms would be considered very atypical for a simple urinary tract infection, especially one not causing any other symptoms or visible abnormalities on the ultrasound.
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/11/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On 1/29/24 I sent Ocean State Veterinary service (****) an email saying that my dog has an appointment on 2/8/24 for a 7:45 drop-off. I said I didn't want X-Rays, I just wanted the Oncept melanoma vaccine like the first three doses, NO Drop-off! I received email response from **** on 2/5/24 acknowledging receipt of my email and desire to have no diagnostics, just the vaccine. They offered a 10:15 appointment on 2/8/24 which I needed to call to accept. I called to confirm the appointment and again stated no diagnostics just the vaccine. They told me ********************* (oncologist) was okay with that.2/8/24 we told the technician we didn't want diagnostics and she said ********************* wanted to examine our dog and that there would be no charge. That is the ONLY reason we said okay. After a brief discussion with the doctor we told him to give him the vaccine. When we checked out there was a charge for the exam. I said I would not pay that fee we were told by the technician there would be no charge. The receptionist contacted oncology and eventually a ********************* came to discuss and asked us to go to the back. Again I told her about my desire for no diagnostics and ********************* being fine with that until we showed up and asked to examine my dog. It was ONLY because the technician said it was free did we agree. ********************* said the technician was in error and rather than waive the exam fee and accept their employees error, she chose to ban us from any further services without an apology.We should not be banned for refusing to pay a fee we were told was to be performed free of charge.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/01/2024

  Dear Members of the Bureau,
      Below please find the testimonials of our client liaison and the doctor involved in this complaint. As a brief introduction, I wanted to explain a few things. First, the Melanoma Vaccine is a treatment given to prevent growth or recurrence of a melanoma tumor. This vaccine is produced in limited quantity, and is only available for board-certified oncologists to administer. At this time, the vaccine is so limited in quantity that we have patients on a waiting list to receive it and no good information as to when it will be available. We have a limited number of doses in stock. ********************** requires that his patients be examined at each of the melanoma vaccine visits. In this case, the patient was found to have another tumor (not a melanoma) which could very well cause the dog to require significant treatment and could shorten the dogs life. For this reason, administration of the melanoma vaccine may not actually extend this patients life and the vaccine may be better utilized for another patient. ********************** feels it is most responsible to do some additional diagnostics to determine the extent of the new tumor in the body and discuss treatment options with the owners. It is his prerogative to provide a standard of care that he feels is appropriate and if a client is not interested in that standard, they have the freedom to seek care elsewhere.  
       Most importantly, I believe it is well within the rights of a private business such as ours to decline to work with clients if they are going to be abusive to the staff and disruptive to the experience of other clients in the building. The female owner demanded to not be charged for an exam, and that exam was refunded. But her behavior, as well as the issue described above, has led us to determine that providing ongoing treatment would not meet these clients satisfaction and would cause undue stress to our staff and clients. This is a stresssful job, and for the sake of all of the patients that deserve to have a ************ hospital, we need to do all we can to retain our staff. Protecting them from abusive clients is one way we can do that. We hope the Bureau can understand and respect the decision that was made. Please see the details of the interactions as described by ********************* (our client liaison) and *********************************, our board-certified Oncologist in the document I uploaded.
  Respectfully,        ***************************** DVM, DACVECC (Chief of Staff)

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/03/2024

  If their response to my complaint is that “Dr. ********* requires patients to be examined at each melanoma visit” is NOT TRUE! Our first three melanoma vaccines had a $35.00 charge described as technician appointment fee on invoice. NO exam fee by Dr. *********. All we wanted was the vaccine in hopes of preventing his oral malignant melanoma from spreading to the rest of his body. We should never have allowed Dr. ********* to examine our dog even for free because we would not allow him to treat him at their prices for anything that our local veterinarian can do, and my dog was already scheduled for his annual wellness exam with our local vet. The only reason we went to Ocean State Veterinary Specialists (OSVS) was for the melanoma vaccine only available for oncologists to administer.If Dr. ********* or OSVS didn’t want to administer the vaccine because we chose not to let them do additional diagnostics on his new tumor, we would have said NO and saved $1,021.00 vaccine costs. Then we would no longer be treated by them and they could have given the vaccine to another patient if there really is a waiting list.We were not then and never have been abusive to anyone voices raised yes, but we were not going to pay a fee which we were told was free. It was not the measly $92.00 exam fee it was the fact that they wanted to charge me a fee they told me was free.**** *******  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/03/2024

   For every melanoma dog, clients always pay the initial consultation fee for the first CMV which is usually given at the first visit.  ********************** did ********* a favor since they didnt start the vaccine at the initial consult, and only charged them a tech appointment instead of a full doctor visit when they started the CMV ~1 week after the first visit. The 2nd and 3rd vaccine he only charges a technician appointment since he typically does not meet with the clients and it is a very abbreviated exam. The goal is to save the clients money as the fourth vaccine, he always does chest x-rays, a full recheck exam and then the 4th CMV. This is then followed by a 3 month recheck exam and chest x-rays and then 6 months full exam, chest x-rays and CMV booster. These costs are explained at the initial visit. ********************** has never had an issue with doing this from any other client in the six years he has been providing these services. *** was always evaluated by him, even at the tech visits, as he takes very seriously his responsibility to monitor progress and identify any new issues.  We understand that the ********* are upset that we are recommending they seek services elsewhere. The melanoma vaccine is a limited resource, and it is expensive. We support ************************** choice to provide that treatment to clients that agree to appropriate staged monitoring and diagnostics to assure that the vaccine is indicated. More importantly, though, the behavior demonstrated, particularly by *******************, was hostile and inappropriate, and while the staff tried to work with them to respect their request not to have radiographs done, it is not appropriate to demand that the doctor's **** not be compensated. We need to support our team, and feel that this is not a constructive relationship. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/05/2024

  You can spin this all you want but my complaint of being charged an exam fee when told it was free is an undeniable fact! It was only after discussions with ***** ***** was that fee waived. That should have never happened! If we were told that Dr. ********* requires an exam for his booster when we rescheduled we would have cancelled our appointment. We just wanted a technician to administer the vaccine. Everyone knew he’s dying and will probably get other cancers but we will let our local veterinarian diagnose them. We consider Dr. ********* our oncologists NOT our veterinarian (vet). The only reason we went to Ocean State Veterinary Specialist (OSVS) is because my local vet said the best treatment plan was the melanoma vaccine only available from an oncologist.I believe you saying Dr. ********* was trying to save us money is a joke. We were talked into procedures on our first visit even though our dog’s records were sent by my local vet with no mention of other issues. The $225.00 oncology exam fee is ok but that’s all from that $1,134.00 invoice. All we wanted was the melanoma vaccine which Dr. ********* agreed was the best treatment plan. We wanted to reduce the possibility of his oral malignant melanoma from spreading to other parts of his body. Dr. ********* also questioned the competency of our local vet when his tumor returned after we cancelled our scheduled OSVS surgery to let our local vet perform it for approximately 25% of the OSVS quoted price of $3,500. No one can guarantee the tumor would not return, not even OSVS. My dog has already been given a diagnosis of oral malignant melanoma with a life expectancy of 300 – 500 days by our local vet and 1-2 years by OSVS, so I believe that once the treatment plan had started there is no reason for continued diagnostic test and exams performed by OSVS other than to charge more money. I believe OSVS is all about money charging pet owners way too much for their services knowing that they will probably do and pay anything to save their pets. Just look at the BBB reviews, that seems to be a common complaint.