My dog received a minor cut on his foot, requiring suturing. The laceration repair was performed at Arvada Animal Hospital (AAH) on 9/24/08 on the ~1/2cut on the foot of my greyhound. I was out of town, so the dog was brought in by my mother Jean Chalmers and my friend Donna Hoelsken. My mother informed the veterinarian that I owned the dog, and was an experienced veterinary technician with professional and personal experience with this type of injury.
The veterinarian indicated that this appeared to be a simple injury, but he would need to anesthetize the dog to confirm there wasn't serious damage and to suture the wound. He confirmed prior to service that he was familiar with anesthesia safety procedures for greyhounds. When the question of cost was broached, he indicated that a simple repair wouldn't cost very much.
The injury required 4 simple soft-tissue sutures along the side and through the webbing of one toe. The webbing was not fully sutured, resulting in a structurally sound but ascetically imprecise repair. There was no tendon, ligament or bone damage, and the repair did not require nor was completed with specialized equipment or surgical techniques. Although the veterinarian indicated familiarity with greyhound anesthesia procedures, he neglected to complete the standard precaution of pre-anesthesia blood work.
This common laceration repair in a general medicine clinic would typically cost $100-$200, with another $50-75 for blood work. Thus, the amount of $913.88 charged by AAH is inconsistent with the assertion that the repair wouldn't cost very much, and is highly disproportionate for the service requested and provided.
We have made numerous attempts to resolve this with the vendor, and during each stage have communicated a willingness to negotiate a fair and reasonable amount. A letter was sent to AAH on 10/6/08, communicating our concern and asking for a response by 10/13/08. The vendor did not respond to this request.
On 10/16/08, a dispute was filed via the Capital One credit card used to pay the vendor in order to pick the dog up. Substantial supplementary documentation was provided during that process, including: invoice and medical record from AAH, wound pictures, letter to vendor, actual invoices for previous simple to moderate laceration repairs on dogs and horses ranging from $111 - $197, and a letter from Dr. James Wingert regarding the lack of severity of the wound and the simplicity of repair procedure.
The Capital One dispute process cumulated with a letter on 12/3/08, confirming receipt of all documentation and indicating that the charge of $913.88 had been reversed. The letter stated that the case would be closed if the vendor did not resubmit the charge within 45 days of the date of the letter. On 1/17/09,45 days after the letter date, the vendor had not resubmitted the charge and thus we thought the case was closed.
On 1/26/09, a letter was received from Capital One that informed us that the charge had been reinstated because the vendor resubmitted the charge on 1/23/08 - even though the 45 days for resubmission had expired. The vendor claims he provided the services he charged for - but he did not address our concern that the charges where grossly inflated, and certainly not in the range of wouldn't cost very much. Capital One indicated that they could be of no further assistance in this matter.
We submitted this case to the Better Business Bureau on 1/29/09 in the hopes of obtaining a fair and reasonable resolution. On 2/2/09, the BBB informed us they would not be able to be of assistance in this matter.
We are thus submitting this case to the Tom Martino Troubleshooter and the RIP OFF networks, hoping to find someone willing and able to help us in this matter. We requested a simple soft-tissue laceration repair and were told this wouldn't cost very much. We received an adequate, if imprecise, laceration repair. The charges, however, are comparable to an extensive surgical procedure such as intricate abdominal surgery or limb amputation. The procedure performed at AAH was not surgery - this was about as common and simple as a laceration repair could be.
To further express the disparity of this incident at AAH, this same greyhound had a damaged toe nail removed during his annual dental cleaning on 12/28/08 by Dr. Wingert. The anesthesia, preparation, suturing, bandaging, and antibiotics were virtually identical to that done at AAH. Yet the cost for the toe nail repair was $180, drastically different from AAH's $913.88 laceration repair. This recent experience demonstrates the cost for the laceration repair at AAH was drastically overcharged. As this merchant has not made ANY attempt to address this situation, I have come to believe that this episode was carefully orchestrated by AAH with purposeful intent to commit fraud.
I am seeking a judgment that the cost of $913.88 by AAH for the laceration repair is excessive and not in keeping with what was requested and performed, or the assertion that the procedure wouldn't cost very much. I believe $200 is fair based on documentation of similar charges for similar work. However, I would pay $300 - and consider myself lucky that my dog didn't die from anesthesia due to lack of precautionary blood work. Thus, at this point, I am seeking a refund from this vendor in the amount of $613.88. Your assistance and advice in this matter would be most appreciated.
0 comments