Please use your browser to return to the Main/Navigation Page.

Warning:  Due to the nature of this page, while you have it on your screen it is supposed to automatically play the music, "Yakity-Yak" as the most appropriate title choice for this page  - feel free to turn your speakers off at any time you've "over-dosed" as I haven't figured out how to control it [yet]!  Thank you for your understanding.


Part#1

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System - ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

BBB CASE#: 22016444 (Page #1)

Filed by Ginger Sanchez on 8/26/04 against Williams,DVM/Burien Veterinary Hospital; Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners Veterinary Hospital; and, Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Laboratories

NOTE: ONLY Five Corners apparently used to be a member of BBB and apparently the other individuals/entities are not and therefore therefore totally immune from this action.  The following is a true copy of the complaint and desired resolution:

Consumer's Complaint:   On 4/24/04 I rushed my very sick dog to the Five Corners Veterinary Hospital due to a different veterinarian having prescribed/dispensed what turned out to be a deadly canine FDA/CVM approved drug for a touch of arthritis. I provided Dr. Hammond of that facility detailed information/instructions as to who/how to contact the drug manufacturer, Pfizer, at their 1-800 number to obtain verifications of my dog's symptoms and medical treatment information. They, instead, mis-diagnosed her condition and then told me that instead of giving my dog more time to try to recover on her own, gave me a choice of EITHER doing CPR or euthanasia (the early morning of 4/25/04, about 12 hours after the dog's admittance to their facility). When I asked what doing CPR would accomplish, they told me 'nothing'. My dog was euthanized and I requested that they make arrangements for a necropsy to be performed in order to determine the cause of my dog's death. The veterinarian on duty at that time (the morning of 4/25/04) told me that the cost to me would be a 'ball park figure' of approximately $500.00 and I agreed to it. After my dog was euthanized, the office person (name unknown) told me that before she would make a call to the laboratory to arrange for a necropsy, they required payment on the spot and in full of $1100.00. When I asked why the figure was more than twice what I had been told to expect, I was told that they did not have adequate refrigeration facilities to hold my dog in until the necropsy laboratory could pick up her body on the morning of 4/26/04 (24+ hours after death) and the additional charge was for a whole lot of ice in order for my dog's remains to be sufficiently preserved for a proper necropsy to be done. I agreed to pay the sum and did so by credit card (receiving a 10% discount as a senior citizen, total amount paid for the necropsy now being $990.00). The necropsy report was supposed to be available about 4/29 or 4/30/04 and I was finally able to obtain a copy of the report about 5/3/04. When I did not understand the 'findings', I called and was finally able to speak to Dr. Hammond who verbally summed up her opinion that my dog suffered from too many multiple conditions and didn't survive due to her 'age'. When I was not satisfied with that explanation, I contacted the necropsy laboratory, Phoenix Central Laboratories, Everett, Washington (who does not appear on any of the BBB searches) to speak directly to the veterinarian/pathologist who allegedly did the necropsy, Dr. Robert Murnane, DVM, Ph.D., Diplomate, A.C.V.P. on 5/10/04 and was informed by the office personnel there that no one would give me any information because the Five-Corners/Vet Hammond was the client and hung up on me after informing me that Dr. Hammond was the only person to contact. On 5/24/04 I sent a demand letter by fax to Dr. Hammond/Five Corners demanding that they voluntarily provide written authorization to Dr. Murnane to speak to me and to order/authorize Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Lab to 'preserve' my dog's 'bits and pieces' for a second necropsy and DNA testing until I located and made arrangements at another facility for same and for Hammond/Five Corners to provide me with an itemized billing of the $990.00 necropsy charges. When I called Five-Corners to determine that had received my faxed demand letter, the office person (Margaret Baty)acknowledged receipt of the faxed demand letter and informed me that Dr. Hammond had 'opted' to NOT provide any written release/authorization but had provided the release/authorization to Dr. Murnane by a telephone call. When I went to pick up the records and itemized necropsy billing, there was no itemized necropsy billing. I faxed a demand letter to Murnane/Phoenix Lab stating I would call their 1/800-347-0043 on 6/1/04, and when I did so, I was only allowed to speak to a person who identified herself as Linda Jewett and stated that she was the 'marketing person in charge of everything at the laboratory'. Ms. Jewett acknowledged receipt of the complete fax addressed to Dr. Murnane and stated that Dr. Murnane would NOT speak to me, that I could NOT have his e-mail address; that my dog's 'bits and pieces' WOULD have been preserved and kept in appropriate condition for a second necropsy and DNA testing 'as a matter of routine procedure' and provided me with HER e-mail address so that I could confirm that after she had a chance to verify that as the person in charge of that had already left for the evening. When I e-mailed Ms. Jewett several times and requested confirmation of the status of my dog's remains, I got no response from her and the e-mail had been delivered and not returned. I have since learned that Dr. Murnane apparently has already had his license to practice veterinary medicine 'compromised' by checking his 'record' out at: www.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/Application/Credential_Search/Action_Detail_Rot.asp?PCN.  

Consumer's Desired Resolution:    I want a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr.Hammond/Five Corners and Dr.Murnane/Phoenix Lab, along with a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinarian Hospital with respect to my dog, my dog's condition, and any/all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer regarding same; an itemized billing of the necropsy charges as outlined in my fax demand letters; all of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties; the current 'status' of ALL of my dog's 'bits and pieces' as previously demanded; a full refund of the monies paid to Five Corners (which totals just under $2,000.00); a 'replacement' dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer or IF they did, when they did and for what purpose and upon what 'basis' Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the 'credentials' of said laboratory and whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory and under what authority the Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.


Part#2

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System  RESPONSE OF FIVE CORNERS

BBB CASE#: 22016444

NOTE:  The 'hard copy' of the Response of Five Corners was mailed to me and for some reason does not appear on-line; this BBB cover letter  was provided to the WA Vet Board as 'Exhibit #77; the Five Corners Response is 'Exhibit #78; my responses to each item of the letter #78 are in RED FONT for readability] - the following is a true and correct copy of that letter and my response:

LETTER:  #77: FROM BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU VIA U.S.MAIL REC'D 9/25/04, DATED 9/22/04, POST-MARKED 9/24/04 TO GINGER SANCHEZ:
9/25/04
 
Better Business Bureau Serving Oregon & Western Washington
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
Tel: 206 431-2222 Fax: 206 431-2211
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business regarding your complaint.  Please review their response to your original complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by October 2, 2004.
 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the company's response has resolved the complaint.
 
If you find you are dissatisfied with the company's response, please provide us with a MIDDLE GROUND offer we can present to the company in an effort to resolve this dispute.  If this is not provided, the BBB may not be able to be of further assistance in this matter.
 
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to this complaint.  You will be able to enter your response directly on our website:
http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsumer.html?cid=22016444&auth=3fvwc4
 
If you are unable to respond using the internet, then please respond in writing to the address above or FAX to (206) 431-2200.  Thank you for using the services of the BBB!
 
Sincerely,
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
LETTER #78:  RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT BY HAMMOND/FIVE CORNERS VETERINARY  HOSPITAL [ENCLOSED WITH ABOVE BBB LETTER]
9/8/04                           DATE STAMPED: 9/13/04
 
Better Busines Bureau
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
Redarding:    Complaint Activity Report
               Case #22016444 Ginger Sanchez
 
Ms. Sanchez presented her dog "Romy" to this facility as an emergency case on 24 April 2004.  On presentation the dog was unable to stand on her own and unable to support her own weight when lifted.  She had severe
 
(1) neurological symptoms [symptom of Rimadyl toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10 for both horizonal and rotary nystagmus, which Hammond commented on in my presence]
 
(2) was hypothermic [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10],
 
(3) had conjunctivitis [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10]
 
(4) and a urinary tract infection [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10]
 
Routine blood chemistries showed that she had (5) elevated liver enzymes [symptom of Rimadyl/carprofen toxicity, see www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ann.97.pdf, Adverse Drug Experiences, 1997 CVM Annual Summary, at page 10,and NOTE: lab results were faxed to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04, see original fax document #3 - five out of five symptoms in this letter point to Rimadyl toxicity, which I INFORMED Hammond of prior and during the initial examination, which was the ONLY time I saw Hammond] [the foregoing referenced report is now document #80].
 
Ms. Sanchez was given a summary of initial exam findings [NOTHING was given to me except the BILL to be paid on the spot; the only paperwork I saw besides the itemized anticipated charges was the form I was required to sign stating and agreeing that when my dog was released from care with Hammond/Five Corners, I would take her to Williams/BVH for the next 180 days following her release, previously submitted as document item #5] and was offered referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined [the ONLY thing said to me was that the first thing was to get ROMI 'diagnosed' via x-rays and lab tests and then 'stable' via IV's and 'monitoring'; that IF the diagnosis, AFTER TESTING, was of neurologic origin, THEN it would be recommended to do a 'neurological consult', but at that point, until testing and monitoring had been done; it would have been PREMATURE to have OFFERED a 'neurological consult' on Saturday 4/24/04 in the evening and it was 'wait and see' what the lab/x-ray results were and how ROMI responded to the IV's- there was NO 'neurological consultation "offered" and therefore no 'neurological consultation' was "declined".  In any event, it's totally irrelevant whether any 'neurological consult' was allegedly offered/allegedly declined and can only be viewed as a self-serving attempt to try to justify the mis-diagnosis that occurred because of the veterinarian apparent refusal to pay attention to the Rimadyl toxicity information provided; this is literally a case of 'beating a dead DOG to death']
 
She was then presented with a detailed estimate for supportive care and continued monitoring of liver enzymes  [this is true- the gal with the clipboard was continuously giving me itemized printouts of how much money they wanted before doing anything;].  Ms. Sanchez opted to continue "Romy's" care at Five Corners Hospital at least overnight. [when I was there I paid the first set of 'anticipated charges' of $376.30 for the initial exam, blood work, urinanalysis and x-rays (the reports of which were never provided to me, despite my demand faxed letter); I WAS repeatedly told that once ROMI was released from care at Five Corners that I was REQUIRED to return her for ANY care for the next minimum time frame of 180 days; then I paid by phone authorization another $497.70 on 4/24/04 for the first 12 hours of ICU/monitoring & IVs, see exhibit #15][please NOTE that the statement of "continued monitoring of liver enzymes" is both misleading and self-serving:  unless there are additional laboratory reports that I have NOT been provided with there were only TWO [2] CBC/full chemistry lab tests done: the first one 4/24/04 at 3:55 p.m., shortly after admittance (item #7 previously submitted); and 4/25/04 at 7:24 a.m. which I requested being done prior to ROMI's being euthanized for the purposes of comparison and BOTH of these are additionally documented on the billing statements (Item #15) and BOTH of these were faxed by Hammond/Five Corners to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04 (Item #3) LONG before I ever saw them.  I was initially told that the liver enzymes were "off the chart" (another classic Rimadyl toxicity indication) but the second 'full cbc/full chemistry (liver enzymes) showed a significant reduction JUST PRIOR TO ROMI's death, although Dr. Meyer refused to wait either for lab results OR to give ROMI any more time to 'come out of it'].
 
On presentation, and during several subsequent conversations with Ms. Sanchez, she indicated that she was sure "Romy's" illness was secondary to the administration of Rimadyl that had been prescribed by the regular veterinarian [there was only ONE conversation that took place with Hammond, although it was a very LONG conversation in which I CONTINUED to relay the symptoms ROMI'd been having AND that they were all listed and explained on the www.srdogs.com and Pfizer.com websites, ALONG WITH the 1/800 Pfizer number to get veterinarian assistance  - the initial exam was conducted in the presence of the 'clipboard woman', and I repeatedly told BOTH of them I very strongly believed it was Rimadyl toxicity, ASKED if they had Internet access and provided both the www.srdogs.com website and www.Pfizer.com website and TOLD them to call Pfizer's 1/800 number (which was ON both websites) to verify the symptoms AND get the correct treatment information as to IV's, etc.]Despite assurances by myself [I was NOT 'assured by Hammond that it wasn't Rimadyl; I kept telling Hammond that it WAS most likely due to Rimadyl toxicity and she just wasn't listening apparently] and later by Dr. Rachel Meyer, that Rimadyl toxicity does not cause neurologic signs [but it DOES, Pfizer knows that: see Items #24,#31,#32,#33,#35,#36,#38,#40,#59,#60,#61,#62,#63,#64,#65, #66,#67,#68,#73,#80 and veterinarians are supposed to know that's one of the "risks" with NSAIDs [Rimadyl/carprofen]- see: AVMA at: www.avma.org for "Minimizing the risk factors associated with veterinary NSAIDs, 4/15/04, Item #81; FDA Veterinarian for March/April, "Adverse Drug Experience Reports . . ." , Item #82; www.valleypetnews.com "Veterinarians Prescribing Rimadly: Don't Know v. Don't Tell", 4/13/04, Item #83; www.valleypetnews.com "Pfizer Repackages 'Rimadyl' Arthritis Drug To Educate Dog Owners of Risks", 4/13/04, Item #84;
 
Ms. Sanchez was unwilling to hear our professional opinions.  Ms. Sanchez never provided contact information and/or instruction regarding contacting Pfizer, the manufacturer of Rimadyl. [totally untrue, see above; additionally Five Corners was in contact with Williams/BVH, providing HIM with lab results, etc., by fax and doing so LONG before I had any of the information either verbally or in written form]
 
"Romy" was hospitalized overnight during which time her neurologic status continued to deteriorate while her liver enzymes improved [THIS IS A HUGE CLUE AS TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, RIMADYL! and yet the ongoing veterinarian DENIALS CONTINUE to this very day!  When I called at 9:00 p.m., I was told ROMI "was resting comfortably and on IV, and it was a 'wait and see matter"].  Dr. Meyer attempted to contact Ms. Sanchez multiple times after midnight on 25 April 2004 to inform her of her dog's condition, even going so far as to call the operator to request an emergency interruption of Ms. Sanchez's busy telephone line, but was unable to contact Ms. Sanchez until nearly 7:00 a.m. on 25 April 2004.  At that point "Romy" was comatose and close to death.  Dr. Meyer advised Ms. Sanchez that due to the degeneration of "Romy's" condition overnight "Romy" was unlikely to recover and offered euthanasia for humane reasons. [Dr. Meyer offered CPR! and when I asked what CPR would do to bring her out of a coma, Dr. Meyer said 'nothing' but it was either CPR OR euthanasia, and that the alleged 'brain condition', that's once again claimed above in this letter response to the BBB, was DEBUNKED by the necropsy report] 
 
Ms. Sanchez indicated at that time that she was concerned, should "Romy" be euthanized, that necropsy findings would be altered and she would not be able to prove that "Romy's" death was due to Rimadyl. [NOT what I said; I said IF Rimadyl was INDEED the cause of ROMI's death, that needed to be 'exposed' by having a necropsy done so that other dogs wouldn't be dying needlessly, too]
 
(page 2)
When I arrived on the morning of the 25 April 2004, "Romy" had been euthanized and the owner's request for necropsy had been noted.  Joanne Rideout, I.V.T. and I arranged with Phoenix Labs to perform the necropsy [when I paid the remaining amount to cover the necropsy charge, I was ASSURED by the 'clip board woman' that the arrangements had ALREADY BEEN MADE THEN, AS SOON AS MY CREDIT CARD PAYMENT WAS CLEARED/AUTHORIZED which was 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m. according to Master Charge records].  At that time, Ms. Sanchez was informed of the cost of the necropsy through Phoenix Labs ($1,100.00)  [what was Phoenix Labs actually PAID?] to which she agreed and paid.  While Phoenix Labs does not usually have a courier come to our hospital, the lab did arrange to have a courier come that day to pick up "Romy's" remains.  Since we don't have refrigerator space sufficient for a Rottweiler, we prepared "Romy's" remains as directed by the lab.  I can attest to the fact that "Romy's" body was in possession of the courier from Phoenix Labs by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon.
 
The full necropsy results were not available to us until the afternoon of 2 May 2004.  A partial report, the gross findings, was printed on 27 April 2004, but the microscopic findings were still pending at that point.  It is our policy that the veterinarian who was responsible for the case be the one to discuss laboratory results with the owner.  I was unavailable from 26 April 2004 through 3 May 2004.  Dr. Melanie Caviness read the preliminary report to Ms. Sanchez on 30 April 2004.  [the ONLY person who gave me any verbal necropsy information over the phone OTHER than Hammond on 5/3/04, was a young and VERY 'silly' sounding female who answered the phone, did NOT identify herself as a veterinarian, and after telling me that the 'cause of death was euthanasia', said that all the vets were busy, tried to read the report to me, was all tangled up trying to say the medical terminology and then 'gave up' trying to pronounce the words and said for me to call back and talk to Hammond; when I continued calling to speak to Hammond, everyone answering the phone offered to 'help me' as she was not available, and when I said I wanted information regarding the necropsy report, each and everyone of them said that ONLY Hammond could tell me anything; at NO time did anyone ever identify themself as a veterinarian at Five Corners.] I discussed the full report with her on 3 May 2004.
 
On 25 May 2004 we received a fax from Ms. Sanchez demanding an itemized breakdown of the necropsy fee, a written statement from myself to Phoenix Labs regarding the release of her pet's remains, information regarding specifics on the necropsy which were only available through Phoenix Labs, and "Romy's" full medical records.  We provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of "Romy's" medical records and I contacted Phoenix Labs regarding release of "Romy's" remains.  At that time Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains. [as stated in my response to this letter below, I was NEVER given any information by ANY PERSON regarding Linda Jewett; the ONLY information that I ever had was by my reading the letterhead of the necropsy report that showed the phone and fax numbers of Phoenix Lab and my contacts with THEM are outlined in the 3rd section of the complaint previously submitted].
 
All of "Romy's" medical records and the communications we have had with Ms. Sanchez can be made available to you on written request from Ms. Sanchez.
 
Sincerely,
[signed]
Margaret Lynn Hammond, D.V.M.
 

Part#3

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System - Consumer Rebuttal to Response

BBB CASE#: 22016444

Complaint filed by: Ginger Sanchez    
Complaint filed against: Five Corners

Activity

Date
Activity
Description
09/27/2004  Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business   
09/27/2004  Received Consumer Rebuttal 

Re: Case #22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
Response of Ginger Sanchez to the Response of Hammond/Five Corners

Per your cover letter from the BBB, dated 9/22/04, post-marked 9/24/04 and received by me via U.S. Mail on 9/25/04: I went to the website listing provided in your letter, and while it gives the 'history' of the case and my complaint and the "Consumer's Desired Resolution" that was filed along with my complaint, I was not able to locate either the "response" of Five Corners on line OR find any way to ADD anything to the website, such as my 'response', which is now below and which includes the BBB required "MIDDLE GROUND offer" for presentation to Hammond/Five Corners:

1. The "company", Five Corners Veterinary Hospital's/Margaret Hammond, DVM's, "response" has NOT resolved the complaint because NONE of the issues contained in the Consumer's Original Complaint OR the Consumer's Desired Resolution have been addressed by the "company". This BBB complaint deals ONLY with the financial aspects and the previously demanded records information [and for 'making me whole'] and it is NOT a forum for self-serving 'rebuttal' statements regarding the veterinarian malpractice/incompetence mis-diagnosis and cover-up issues which are being dealt with by the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors, in Case#2004-04-0008VT originally filed on 4/29/04 and added to on 5/16/04 and 6/10/04, and currently still under investigation by that entity which does NOT deal with and doesn't have the 'authority' to deal with any financial/billing issues, production/furnishing of any records/information or 'making whole' of an injured party in any manner.

2. I will re-state the issues RELEVANT to the BBB complaint in the hopes that even the most dim-witted [or stonewalling] individual can comprehend what the issues ARE as outlined in the BBB 'complaint' filed by me and have additionally provided the BBB required "MIDDLE GROUND offer" to be presented at the end of each previously stated item:

A: I want a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr.Hammond/Five Corners and Dr.Murnane/Phoenix Lab, along with a complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinarian Hospital with respect to my dog, my dog's condition[s], and any/all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer regarding same; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

B: an itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges, that were paid in full, as outlined in my fax demand letters; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

C:  all of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties; [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];
the current 'status' of ALL of my dog's 'bits and pieces' as previously demanded;
[as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

D:  a full refund of the monies paid to Five Corners (which totals just under $2,000.00); [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

E:  a 'replacement' dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

F:  why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer or IF they did, when they did and for what purpose [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item];

G:  upon what 'basis' Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the 'credentials' of said laboratory [as to a 'middle ground offer' for the BBB to present: "a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE written and signed explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will not provide this", if they continue to fail/refuse to provide this item]; 

H:  and, whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory and under what authority the Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington, as according to the Hammond/Five Corners' 'response' "At that time Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains." Hammond/Five Corners NEVER provided me any information as to "contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs". My SOLE 'source of information' was from reading the letterhead of the Phoenix Lab necropsy report upon which the name of "Ms. Linda Jewett" does NOT appear and NOTHING was ever conveyed to me by Hammond/Five Corners regarding any policies anyone had as to who would explain the necropsy findings [other than Hammond at Five Corners] and absolutely NOTHING was ever conveyed to me by ANYONE regarding any "policy" that would continue to prevent the release of my dog's remains for a 2nd necropsy and DNA identification testing prior to "Ms. Linda Jewett's" refusal to release any of the 'bits and pieces' or the 'frozen carcass' of my dog without a court order in the one and only telephone conversation that I had with "Ms. Linda Jewett" on 6/01/04 when I called and spoke to "Ms. Linda Jewett" after sending a demand fax to Phoenix Labs that included a copy of the demand fax sent to Hammond/Five Corners, BOTH of which have been totally ignored by both Hammond/Five Corners and Phoenix Central Labs [who is not a member of the BBB].

ALL of the items listed above are either IN the control and/or possession of Hammond/Five Corners or are accessible ONLY TO Hammond/Five Corners. For your convenience I am including in this e-mail response to the Hammond/Five Corner's response, a complete and true copy of the demand fax letter sent to Hammond/Five corners on 5/24/04 [mis-dated 5/25/04], receipt of which was verbally acknowledged by a "Margaret Baty, Operations Manager" of Five Corners, and which was incorporated into and provided to the WA Vet Board to include in the WA Vet Board Complaint via their investigator as Document/Exhibit #12:

May 25, 2004

Margaret Hammond, DVM
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Avenue
Seattle, WA 98148

Re: DEMAND/REQUEST FOR YOUR VOLUNTARY PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
Client ID: 17264
CLIENT NAME: Ginger Sanchez
PATIENT NAME: ROMY
Disposition: Euthanized 4/25/04

Dear Dr. Hammond,

It is with deep regret and sadness that I write to you regarding the unnecessary death of my sole friend and companion Rottweiler, ROMY, at your facility on 4/25/04. I am hereby DEMANDING that you VOLUNTARILY provide me with the following information/records regarding this matter:

1. An itemized breakdown of the necropsy fee charged in the sum of $1,100.00 [paid in full before time of service less the 10% senior citizen discount), including, but not limited to the sum actually paid to the Phoenix Central Laboratory, any/all transport fees, and the itemized costs/fees allegedly incurred for refrigerating ROMY with a description of said efforts, along with the time-frames such events occurred.

2. A Release Form, signed by you, Margaret Hammond, DVM, and/or Five Corners Veterinary Hospital, the original to be sent to Robert Murname, DVM, Ph.D, Phoenix Central Laboratory, Lab ID#: 04-07223, with a copy bearing your signature provided to me, which authorizes the release of ALL of ROMY?s remains, including any and all bits and pieces of ROMY, from their or your custody and/or control, including but not limited to any and all histopathological specimens, any and all reports and/or records regarding, in any/all forms either written or oral, relating to and/or referring to same; any and all tissue specimens, samples, or other such bits and pieces, including but not limited to any such items mounted on slides; the "Representative portions of all organ systems [that] are preserved in formalin. Adipose, heart, lung, kidney and liver frozen. [and the] Remainder of the carcass frozen?" as referred to in the necropsy report bearing Lab ID#: 04-07223 and your account number: 1190, with the instructions that said ?remains? shall be retained in appropriate condition until I have made arrangements for their examination and removal to an appropriate facility.

3. As the Phoenix Laboratory informed me that they will not tell me, as the pet owner, any information whatsoever about anything and that you are the only one they will have and/or permit any contact with regarding this matter, I additionally DEMAND that you inquire into the following, if you don?t already have such information, and provide me with the a copy of any/all results, in any form, whether written, recorded or as contemporaneous note, of such :

A. What tests, if any, were done to determine : ". . . there is no strong evidence of extensive hepatic toxicity such as from Rimadyl." [per the necropsy report];

B. Upon what source of information was the foregoing statement: ". . . there is no strong evidence of extensive hepatic toxicity such as from Rimadyl." [per the necropsy report] based;


C. A report and/or statement as to whether ANY evidence of liver toxicity existed and, if to so what degree; the expected length of duration such toxicity existed and upon what source of information such an opinion is based.

D. Upon what source and/or sources of information the ". . . overall only moderate hepatic liver compromise would have been predicted." [from the necropsy report] statement was made;

E. The full identity of the individual and/or ANY and ALL individuals who allegedly provided "A second opinion was obtained on this case on liver sections and the thyroid-associated mass section and concurred." [from the necropsy report], providing such persons? full name, address, telephone numbers and credentials as to providing such opinion[s];

4. A chronological listing developed from your contemporaneously kept treatment records indicating the specific identity/brand name and quantity of any/all of the IV fluids allegedly administered, along with the time-frame[s] of same and the specific identity/brand name quantity and time of each and every medication and/or other item allegedly added to each specified IV.

5. An itemized listing containing any and all x-rays taken along with any/all reports of same, either written or oral, containing any/all findings and/or reference regarding same.

6. Copies of any/all Release/Consent Forms signed by me, including but not limited to the form agreeing that I would take ROMY for any/all additional treatment to the original veterinarian during the 180 days time period after she was released from emergency care.

Dr. Hammond, it is my hope that this matter can be resolved to my satisfaction by you voluntarily providing all of the above-requested information and without the necessity of my having to ask the State of Washington, Department of Health, Veterinary Board of Governors to intercede on my behalf as I have had to do by filing a complaint against Dr. Williams.

Sincerely,

Ginger Sanchez
Additionally, please be advised that according to the first paragraph of 2nd page of the Hammond/Five Corners' "response":
"Joanne Ridout, LVT and I [letter signed by Hammond] arranged with Phoenix Labs to performed the necropsy." [I NEVER saw 'hide nor hair' of Hammond on 4/25/04, despite my being there from about shortly before 4:00 a.m. until approximately 8:30 a.m., I only saw Dr. Meyer and some of the staff people];
The ball park figure quoted to me by Dr. Meyer before Romy was euthanized was "about $500, a little more or less"; after Romy was dead, a person [whose name I don't know, but they appeared to be a staff person of some sort and walking around holding a clipboard] came outside of the building at the entry door area, where I was trying to compose myself, and informed me that I needed to pay $1,100.00 right then and there before she would make any call to the necropsy lab. When I asked her why the charge was going to now be more than double the estimated amount I'd been quoted, she stated that as they had nothing to refrigerate Romy's body in until the laboratory could pick my dog up on Monday, as they [the lab] "did not do 'special pick-ups'", that they [Five Corners] would "need a whole lot of ice". NOW in the Hammond/Five Corners 'response' Hammond states: "I can attest to the fact that "Romy's'" body was in possession of the courier from Phoenix Labs by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon."
Please advise by return e-mail if you received this, so I'll know whether it's going to be necessary to print it out and mail it or fax it to the number provided on your letterhead before the 10/02/04 deadline you have given me. Thank you.

Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]:
GingerLSanchez@aol.com

Complaint Status:

09/27/2004  Re-open a Complaint   
09/22/2004  Manually Forward Business response to Consumer   
09/22/2004  Receive Business Response   
09/15/2004  NMBR-Resend Complaint to Business   
09/15/2004  NMBR- No response to first notice to business   
08/27/2004  Inform Business of the Complaint   
08/27/2004  Send acknowledgement to Consumer   
08/27/2004  Complaint Validated by BBB Operator   
08/26/2004 

Complaint Received by BBB 



***We are waiting for the business to respond. They have until October 12, 2004 to respond to this complaint. If they do not respond further action will be taken. *** 


PART #4:

This is the final "solution" of the BBB's efforts at a "resolution" as posted on-line via the BBB search engine on 10/13/04.

BBB Reliability Report

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

General Information

Original Business Start Date: April 1962
Local Business Start Date: April 1962
Principal: Dr Melanie Caviness, Medical Director
Phone Number: (206) 243-2982
Membership Status: No
Type-of-Business Classification: Veterinarians

Customer Experience

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to two or more unresolved complaints.

Additional Information

Additional TOB Classifications:

Animal Hospitals

Report as of 10/13/2004
Copyright© 2004 Better Business Bureau®, Inc.

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards.

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System

BBB CASE#: 22016444

Complaint filed by: Ginger Sanchez    
Complaint filed against:

Business Info

NAME:

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital 

 BBB MEMBER:

NO 

CONTACT:

Dr Melanie Caviness 

ADDRESS:

15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

PHONE:

206 243-2982 

FAX:

206 248-0264 

    (Less)
Complaint status:

Activity

Date
Activity
Description
10/13/2004  Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Consumer - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal   
09/27/2004  Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business 
 
[from the BBB on 10/13/04]:
We have received your most recent correspondence in the above-mentioned complaint.
You have indicated that you are NOT satisfied with the business' response in the matter.
The business has not made any further concessions to their original response.
Unfortunately, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) cannot pursue the matter further. This complaint is now considered
closed UNRESOLVED.
The BBB develops and maintains Reliability Reports on companies across the United States and Canada. This information is available to the public and is frequently used by potential customers. The company's level of cooperation in resolving to this complaint becomes a part of their file with the BBB.
A summary of this complaint case can be seen by clicking http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsumer.html?cid=22016444&auth=3fvwc4.

Sincerely,
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department

 
10/13/04
 
Deborah Schenck
Better Business Bureau Serving Oregon & Western Washington
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
 
Re: Case #22016444: Five Corners Veterinary  Hospital
 
Dear Deborah,
 
I am assuming, from having gone on-line and using the search engine to locate information on the Five Corners Veterinary Hospital group, that they have chosen to not respond and/or are not interested in reaching any sort of resolution in this matter, which I find disappointing, but not very surprising.
 
I do want to take this opportunity to thank you and your organization for all of your efforts in trying to provide some sort of solution to a very ugly situation and additionally want to be certain that you know that I do not hold either you or your organization responsible in any way for the despicable behaviors or attitudes of the Hammond/Caviness/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners group and their business practices, either during the initial malpractice/financial scam they obviously ran on me or how they've chosen to continue ignoring accepting or acknowledging any responsibility for the grevious damage they caused despite the obvious facts.
 
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com


Personal NOTE: While it's unfortunate that the Five Corners Veterinary Group determined to not bother to respond to the Better Business Bureau concerning any of the issues regarding their financial scam, the cover-ups they were involved in with their veterinarian colleagues [DVM Lawrence Williams/Burien Veterinary Clinic and DVM Robert Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory/"Linda Jewett" aka: "Marketing Person In Charge of Everything", and of course their own behaviors] this has still proven to be an extremely valuable learning experience for me by having pursued it to 'the end': I am satisfied that by having taken this Better Business Complaint to its conclusion, that I actully now have all of the answers to my questions by the very fact that the Five Corners Veterinary group refused to provide any substantive answers to anything and perhaps the State of Washington, Attorney General's Department on Consumer Fraud will have better luck than the Better Business Bureau did.  For those reading this, feel free to draw your own conclusions as this is just my own true personal and documented experience. 

 


PART #5:

to "SPIN CITY"

This is the SECOND final "solution" of the BBB's efforts at a "resolution" as AFTER the BBB had CLOSED the matter, Five Corners/Hammond, etc., allegedly mailed a rebuttal to the BBB.  I received a copy of the "rebuttal" by regular mail on 10/29/04 [postmarked 10/27/04] with a copy of a Five Corners letter dated 10/20/04 stating their "rebuttal" had allegedly been mailed on 10/11/04 [which apparently the BBB never received], along with a "copy" of the alleged "rebuttal" dated 10/11/04 and date-stamped received by the BBB on 10/20/04, so now the CLOSED matter is once again OPEN as listed below per the BBB on-line form as of 10/29/04.  LITTLE did I know just how very appropriate the music title of "Yakity-Yak" was going to prove to be!

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System

BBB CASE#: 22016444

Complaint filed by: Ginger Sanchez    
Complaint filed against: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital    (More)
Complaint status:

Activity

Date
Activity
Description
10/27/2004  Manually Forward Final Response to Consumer   
10/27/2004  Re-open a Complaint   
10/13/2004  Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Consumer - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal   
09/27/2004  Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business   
 
 

Posted: 10/30/04
 
The below three [3] items, marked as Exhibits #110, #111 and #112 respectively, are true copies of the cover letter and "rebuttal letter" from the Hammond/Five Corners group addressed to the Better Business Bureau regarding the complaint of Ginger Sanchez, Case#22016444 as provided to Ginger Sanchez by the Better Business Bureau by U.S. Mail received 10/29/04 and postmarked 10/27/04 and are now "labeled" and hereby assigned "exhibit numbers" as indicated for submission to the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, Case#2004-04-0008 VT against Williams/BVH, Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners and Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab and are being provided to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors as "Part 8" of the Sanchez complaint in addition to the cover letter from the Better Business Bureau which accompanied same.

 
Exhibit #110 [cover letter from the Better Business Bureau accompanying Exhibits #111 and #112].
 
October 27, 2004
 
Ginger Sanchez
637 South 159th Street
Seattle, WA  98148
 
re: Case # 22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above-referenced complaint.  Please review their response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by November 6, 2004.  If we do not hear back from you, the BBB will assume you are satisfied and will close your complaint.
 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the business' response has resolved the complaint.
 
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to this complaint.  You will be able to enter your response directly on our website.
 
If you are unable to respond using the internet, then please respond in writing to the address above or Fax to (206) 431-2200.
 
Sincerely,
[signed]
Jennifer Mitten
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department

 
Exhibit#111:[this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 20, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:   22016444
 
We are in receipt of your notice dated October 14, 2004, stating that you have not received our response to the unresolved complaint.  Please note that our response was mailed to your office on October 11, 2004.  I have attached another copy for your review.  Our reply has probably crossed in the mail with your subsequent request.
 
Please let us know if further information is required.
 
Sincerely
 
[signed]
Margaret K. Bath
Officer Manager [Five Corners Veterinary Hospital]

 
Exhibit #112: [this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 11, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:  22016444
 
We are in receipt of the rebuttal by Ms. Sanchez.  To aid in the reply, we have separated the issues presented by Ms. Sanchez and will address each individually.
 
1.  Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Nurnane/Phoenix Lab.
 
We have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which include any conversation(s) between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.  Specifically, the only conversation between Dr. Hammond and Dr. Murnane was on May 27, 2004 regarding the release of the remains and to be sure the release is authorized.  This was documented in the medical records, which has been previously provided to Ms. Sanchez.
2.    Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital.
Again, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which would include any conversation that took place.  Dr. Hammond and Dr. Williams did not consult regarding Romy.  Ms. Sanchez came to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on an emergency basis advising that her dog, Romy, stopped eating and was listless.  Ms. Sanchez advised that she was a client of Burien Veterinary Hospital.  As part of our customary emergency procedure, we faxed Burien Veterinary Hospital a Case Summary describing presenting complaint, history and emergency medical treatment.  A copy of this Case Summary was provided to Ms. Sanchez.
3.    Any and all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer.
There was no contact between Dr. Hammond and Pfizer.  While Ms. Sanchez shared that Romy was on Rimadyl for arthritis, she further advised that she stopped treating Romy with the Rimadyl and that, it was her opinion that Romy seemed to improve.
4.    An itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital charged Ms. Sanchez $990.00 for the necropsy.  The actual invoice was $1,100.00 less a senior discount of $110.00.  Ms. Sanchez has advised that she was originally advised that she was originally advised by Dr. Meyer that the charge for this service would be around $500.00 but would need to contact the laboratory to determine the exact price.  The following morning our office contacted the laboratory to determine the exact price and was advised of the specific necropsy fee.  Our office contacted Ms. Sanchez and advised her of the $1,100.00 fee and Ms. Sanchez authorized us to proceed.  Please note that this is not a service that Five Corners Veterinary Hospital commonly provides, therefore, we had to contact the laboratory directly for an actual quote.
5.    All of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties.
We have provided Ms. Sanchez all copies of medical and laboratory records.  This included the names of all the drugs used in Romy's treatment.
6.    The current status of all of my dog's bits and pieces as previously demanded.
Ms. Sanchez would need to work directly with Phoenix Central Laboratory regarding this request.
7.    A full refund of monies paid to Five Corners.
Ms. Sanchez was presented an initial estimate for medical treatment for Romy, which she approved with her signature.  Subsequent medical treatment and associated costs was discussed with the owner who approved over the telephone by authorizing payment on her credit card.
8.    A replacement dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital does not provide replacement animals.  In reference explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, this information would need to be provided by Phoenix.
9.    Why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer of[or] IF they did, when they did and for what purpose.
According to Dr. Hammond, there was no request to contact Pfizer nor was there evidence of any medical connection between Romy's symptoms presented to Five Corners being related to Rimadyl administration.
10.    Upon what basis Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the credentials of said laboratory.
At the request of Ms. Sanchez, Dr. Meyer of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital arranged for a necropsy to be completed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.  Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their credentials.
11.    Whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.
This should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
12.    What authority Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Again, this question should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
As listed above, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of all medical records, laboratory reports, necropsy report from Phoenix Central Laboratory and all invoices related to this case.  Additionally, we have advised Ms. Sanchez that she should contact Phoenix Central Laboratory directly regarding obtaining access to Romy and any questions regarding the services they provided.
 
Sincerely,
 
[signed]
Melanie W. Caviness, D.V.M.
Medical Director
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
    and
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Operations Manager
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 


POSTED 11/01/04:
11/01/04
 
Better Business Bureau
[there was no e-mail address provided for: Jennifer Mitten]
 
Re: CASE #22016444 - Sanchez vs. Hammond/Five Corners
 
Apparently due to the length of my response to the Hammond/Five Corners "rebuttal", I was not able to use the website to post my response.  I am e-mailing my response to you so that you have it in a timely manner before the deadline given to me expires.  Please advise by return e-mail, or ASAP, that you received this e-mail response and advise if the BBB has accepted same.  Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
 
*****
 
The below three [3] items are true copies of the "rebuttal letter" and accompanying cover letter of the Hammond/Five Corners group addressed to the Better Business Bureau regarding the complaint of Ginger Sanchez, Case#22016444 as provided to Ginger Sanchez by the Better Business Bureau with the BBB cover letter by U.S. Mail received 10/29/04 and postmarked 10/27/04 and which are now 'labeled' and hereby assigned Exhibit# 110, #111 and #112 as indicated, for submission to the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, Case#2004-04-0008 VT against Williams/BVH, Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners and Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab and are being provided to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors as "Part 9" of the Sanchez complaint filed 4/28/04 and currently still under investigation.
============================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit #110 [cover letter from the Better Business Bureau accompanying Exhibits #111 and #112].
 
October 27, 2004
 
Ginger Sanchez
637 South 159th Street
Seattle, WA  98148
 
re: Case # 22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above-referenced complaint.  Please review this response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by November 6, 2004.  If we do not hear back from you, the BBB will assume you are satisfied and will close your complaint.
 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the business' response has resolved the complaint.
 
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to the complaint.  You will be able to enter your response directly on our website.
 
If you are unable to respond using the internet, then please respond in writing to the address above or Fax to (206) 431-2200.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Jennifer Mitten
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
==============================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit#111:
October 20, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:   22016444
 
We are in receipt of your notice dated October 14, 2004, stating that you have not received our response to the unresolved complaint.  Please note that our response was mailed to you on October 11, 2004.  I have attached another copy for your review.  Our reply has probably crossed in the mail with your subsequent request.
 
Please let us know if further information is required.
 
Sincerely
 
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Officer Manager [Five Corners Veterinary Hospital]
================================================
 
[True "clean" copy of item]
Exhibit #112[this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 11, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
We are in receipt of the rebuttal by Ms. Sanchez.  To aid in the reply, we have separated the issues presented by Ms. Sanchez and will address each individually.
 
1.  Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Nurnane/Phoenix Lab.
 
We have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which include any conversation(s) between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.  Specifically, the only conversation between Dr. Hammond and Dr. Murnane was on May 27, 2004 regarding the release of the remains and to be sure the release is authorized.  This was documented in the medical records, which has been previously provided to Ms. Sanchez.
2.    Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners  Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital.
Again, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which would include any conversation that took place.  Dr. Hammond and Dr. Williams did not consult regarding Romy.  Ms. Sanchez came to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on an emergency basis advising that her dog, Romy, stopped eating and was listless.  Ms. Sanchez advised that she was a client of Burien Veterinary Hospital.  As part of our customary emergency procedure, we faxed Burien Veterinary Hospital a Case Summary describing presenting complaint, history and emergency medical treatment.  A copy of this Case Summary was provided to Ms. Sanchez.
3.    Any and all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer.
There was no contact between Dr. Hammond and Pfizer.  While Ms. Sanchez shared that Romy was on Rimadyl for arthritis, she further advised that she stopped treating Romy with the Rimadyl and that, it was her opinion that Romy seemed to improve.
4.    An itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital charged Ms. Sanchez $990.00 for the necropsy.  The actual invoice was $1,100.00 less a senior discount of $110.00.  Ms. Sanchez has advised that she was originally advised that she was originally advised by Dr. Meyer that the charge for this service would be around $500.00 but would need to contact the laboratory to determine the exact price.  The following morning our office contacted the laboratory to determine the exact price and was advised of the specific necropsy fee.  Our office contacted Ms. Sanchez and advised her of the $1,100.00 fee and Ms. Sanchez authorized us to proceed.  Please note that this is not a service that Five Corners Veterinary Hospital commonly provides, therefore, we had to contact the laboratory directly for an actual quote.
5.    All of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties.
We have provided Ms. Sanchez all copies of medical and laboratory records.  This included the names of all the drugs used in Romy's treatment.
6.    The current status of my dog's bits and pieces as previously demanded.
Ms. Sanchez would need to work directly with Phoenix Central Laboratory regarding this request.
7.    A full refund of monies paid to Five Corners.
Ms. Sanchez was presented an initial estimate for medical treatment for Romy, which she approved with her signature.  Subsequent medical treatment and associated costs was discussed with the owner who approved over the telephone by authorizing payment on her credit card.
8.    A replacement dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital does not provide replacement animals.  In reference explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, this information would need to be provided by Phoenix.
9.    Why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer of[or] IF they did, when they did and for what purpose.
According to Dr. Hammond, there was no request to contact Pfizer nor was there evidence of any medical connection between Romy's symptoms presented to Five Corners being related to Rimadyl administration.
10.    Upon what basis Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the credentials of said laboratory.
At the request of Ms. Sanchez, Dr. Meyer of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital arranged for a necropsy to be completed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.  Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their credentials.
11.    Whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.
This should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
12.    What authority Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Again, this question should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
As listed above, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of all medical records, laboratory reports, necropsy report from Phoenix Central Laboratory and all invoices related to this case.  Additionally, we have advised Ms. Sanchez that she should contact Phoenix Central Laboratory directly regarding obtaining access to Romy and any questions regarding the services they provide.
 
Sincerely,
[signed]
Melanie W. Caviness, D.V.M.
Medical Director
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
    and
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Operations Manager
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
=========================================================
 
******
Sanchez Response to Rebuttal of Hammond/Five Corners filed 11/01/04:
 
Below are the Sanchez "responses to Five Corners, et. al, rebuttals" for both the BBB and the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors.  As I do not believe that the BBB ONLINE website recognizes "RED" writing, in front of each item I respond to will appear "RESPONSE:" for readability. In addition to the below documents being provided to the BBB online at their website, a complete copy of this e-mail is being sent via e-mail to both the BBB and to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors as Add-On #9 to the Complaint filed with them in Case# 2004-04-0008 VT which is under investigation.  As the BBB website is/was apparently NOT able to accept the full Sanchez Response, it is being e-mailed to the BBB folks at dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com, and deborah@thebbb.org this date, 11/01/04.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
=======================================================
 
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit #110 [cover letter from the Better Business Bureau accompanying Exhibits #111 and #112].
 
October 27, 2004
 
Ginger Sanchez
637 South 159th Street
Seattle, WA  98148
 
re: Case # 22016444: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above-referenced complaint.  Please review this response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter by November 6, 2004.  If we do not hear back from you, the BBB will assume you are satisfied and will close your complaint. 
 
RESPONSE/QUESTION TO BBB: It would appear that I [Sanchez] am now given eight [8] days in order respond in a "timely manner", whereas the Hammond/Five Corners group has apparently been chronically given some sort of extensions - so I would like to know why that is:
10/27/04    Manually Forward Final Response to Consumer
10/27/04    Re-Open Complaint
10/13/04    Case Closed UNRESOLVED
                      Report as of 10/13/2004: Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to two or more unresolved complaints.
10/13/04    Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    Bureau Judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED
10/13/04    No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal
09/27/04    Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business
09/27/04    Re-Open Complaint
09/22/04    Manually Forward Business response to Consumer 
09/22/04    Receive Business Response
09/15/04    NMBR-Resend Complaint to Business [*** We are waiting for the business to respond. They have until September 25, 2004 to respond to this complaint. If they do not respond the complaint will be closed and this will be reflected in their record.]                      
09/15/04    NMBR- No response to first notice to business
08/27/04    Inform Business of the Complaint [***We are waiting for the business to respond. They have until September 13, 2004 to respond to this complaint. If they do not respond the complaint will be closed and this will be reflected in their record.] 
08/27/04    Send acknowledgement to Consumer
08/27/04    Complaint Validated by BBB Operator
08/26/04    Complaint Received by BBB 
The details of the complaint (including the business' response) are included on the reverse.  Please be sure to indicate whether the business' response has resolved the complaint. 
RESPONSE/NOTE TO THE BBB: 10/30/04: TRUST ME - I AM NOT "SATISFIED". Ginger Sanchez e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to respond to this complaint.  The following URL (website address) will take you directly to the complaint.  You will be able to enter your response directly on our website.
If you are unable to respond using the internet, then please respond in writing to the address above or Fax to (206) 431-2200.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Jennifer Mitten
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
 
=========================================================
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit#111:[this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 20, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:   22016444
 
We are in receipt of your notice dated October 14, 2004, stating that you have not received our response to the unresolved complaint.  Please note that our response was mailed to your office on October 11, 2004.  I have attached another copy for your review.  Our reply has probably crossed in the mail with your subsequent request.
RESPONSE/QUESTION FOR BBB: Please advise if you ever received the ORIGINAL "rebuttal" letter dated 10/11/04 and allegedly mailed, and IF SO, what the actual postmarked date on the envelope was and what date YOU actually received it.  Thank you. 
Please let us know if further information is required.
 
Sincerely
 
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Officer Manager [Five Corners Veterinary Hospital]

 
 
[True copy of item with Sanchez Responses]
Exhibit #112: [this item is date-stamped by the Better Business Bureau as "RECEIVED" Oct 20, 2004]
 
October 11, 2004
 
Deborah Schenk
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department
PO Box 1000
Dupont, WA  98327
 
Dear Ms. Schenk:
 
Re:    Ginger Sanchez
File:  22016444
 
We are in receipt of the rebuttal by Ms. Sanchez.  To aid in the reply, we have separated the issues presented by Ms. Sanchez and will address each individually.
 
1.  Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Lab.
 
We have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which include any conversation(s) between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: Hammond/Five Corners has not been asked about medical records that I have ALREADY received which might or might not include any conversations between Dr. Murnane and Dr. Hammond.
 
Hammond/Five Corners has continuously been asked and is AGAIN asked to produce ANYTHING that would contain ALL CONTACTS OF ANY SORT, such as notes, recordings, memos, etc.
 
If there were NO CONTACTS of ANY sort/type ever made between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group OTHER than such information already contained in the medical records that WERE provided to Sanchez, i.e. NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.
Specifically, the only conversation between Dr. Hammond and Dr. Murnane was on May 27, 2004 regarding the release of the remains and to be sure the release is authorized. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement NOW being submitted to WA VET Board Part #9 Add-On and as Exhibit #113]: As I do not HAVE anything in writing that states, confirms and/or describes, including the date(s), times(s) and all parties involved as well as the CONTENTS of ANY conversations, between either DVM Hammond and DVM Murnane or the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group, I once AGAIN demand that such information be PRODUCED. Since Hammond/Five Corners has now ADMITTED here that such conversation(s) took place, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item. 
 
This was documented in the medical records, which has been previously provided to Ms. Sanchez. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Add-On #9]:  there is NOTHING other than one scribbled note in the Hammond/Five Corners "Progress Notes" [WA Vet Board Exhibit #6]  indicating ANY contact with Murname/PCL.  IF there were NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Murnane/PCL other than that outlined, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, that THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item. 
2.    Complete written record of all contacts and the substance of such contacts between Dr. Hammond/Five Corners and Dr. Williams/Burien Veterinary Hospital.
Again, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with all medical records, which would include any conversation that took place. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 and Exhibit #114]: Hammond/Five Corners has not been asked about medical records that I have already received which might or might not include any conversations between the Hammond/Five Corners group and Williams/BVH.
 
Hammond/Five Corners has continuously been asked and is AGAIN asked to produce ANYTHING that would contain ALL CONTACTS OF ANY SORT, such as notes, recordings, memos, etc.
 
If there were NEVER ANY CONTACTS of ANY sort/type ever made and/or conducted between the Hammond/Five Corners group and Williams/BVH  i.e. NEVER any phone calls, no correspondence, no notes of records or information of any sort provided to Williams/BVH by the Hammond/Five Corners group, it should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors OR
 
ALTERNATIVELY, AGAIN AS BEFORE, THE MIDDLE GROUND OFFER is ONCE AGAIN: a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item. 
 
Ms. Sanchez came to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on an emergency basis advising that her dog, Romy, stopped eating and was listless. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: When I went to Five Corners Veterinary Hospital on the emergency basis I STRONGLY ADVISED that my dog, Romy, was experiencing a MASSIVE TOXIC REACTION TO RIMADYL.  I advised that ROMI had been preseribed/dispensed RIMADYL on 4/13/04, one tablet twice a day.  That she began having problems with refusing to eat and being listless and that on 4/20/04 she'd had what appeared to be seizures/strokes, was unable to stand or walk and would not leave her crate.  I advised that I had gone on the Internet to find out about RIMADYL as there had been NO information provided to me verbally or in writing about the drug and the ONLY thing that had changed in ROMI's life was the taking of RIMADYL.  I TOLD both DVM Hammond and the 'clipboard lady' in the room that they needed to get on the Internet to VERIFY the symptoms that RIMADYL is KNOWN to cause and TOLD THEM the website of www.srdogs.com, TOLD them at that site they could get the PFIZER toll free 'emergency number' to CALL PFIZER to verify the symptoms AND get medical treatment instructions from the PFIZER vets.  DVM Hammond was very absorbed with shining a little flashlight in ROMI's eyes, but the 'clipboard lady' was real busy WRITING.  NOW, it is obvious that the "clipboard lady" was NOT writing down any of the medical information and/or where to find the treatment information that I was providing, but was instead apparently too busy figuring out how much money they needed to collect FIRST before doing anything for my dog.
 
Ms. Sanchez advised that she was a client of Burien Veterinary Hospital. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: I was asked WHERE ROMI had gotten the RIMADYL and my response was that ROMI had gotten it prescribed/dispensed by DVM Williams at Burien Vet Hospital.  I was THEN informed that I HAD to sign an agreement form entitled Owner Information/Patient Information/Initial Treatment Authorization/Medical Consent [for CPR] and Referral Case Admission Agreement, which stated I HAD to take ROMI back to Williams/BVH during the 180 days following her release from Five Corners [WA Vet Board Exhibit #5] AND PAY $376.30 on the spot BEFORE they would treat ROMI.
 
As part of our customary emergency procedure, we faxed Burien Veterinary Hospital a Case Summary describing presenting complaint, history and emergency medical treatment.  A copy of this Case Summary was provided to Ms. Sanchez.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted as WA Vet Board Part #9 Add-On and Exhibit #114]: it is true that the Hammond/Five Corners group faxed Williams/BVH documents on 4/25/04, then again on 5/04/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3] and then apparently yet AGAIN on 5/19/04 at 12:00 p.m. according to their own records [now being submitted as WA Vet Board Exhibit #114 to Part #9 Add-On] BEFORE 5/19/04 Baty's written down alleged attempts to 'call me' on a phone line that is and WAS known to them to be a dedicated Internet connection ONLY to get my "PERMISSION" to provide any more records.
 
RECORDS [and statement/response now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On and Exhibit #114]: From the 5/29/04 packet of records produced for me to pick up that date per the telephone conversation with Baty/Five Corners in response to the Baty/Five Corners letter dated 5/22/04, postmarked 5/24/04 with THEIR postage meter requesting that I contact them because "We will need your approval to send this information" to Williams/BVH, [WA Vet Board Exhibit #13] , according to page 6 [now written on], "those" records HAD ALREADY BEEN SENT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION to Williams/BVH on 5/19/04 [now WA Vet Board Exhibit #114 to Part #9 of Add-On], allegedly WITHOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS OR OTHER CONTACT OF ANY KIND WITH WILLIAMS/BVH, WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, WITHOUT Baty/Five Corners EVEN INFORMING ME during our phone conversation of 5/24/04 that THEY HAD ALREADY SENT THEM and I did not know what they had ALREADY DONE and Baty was then ASKING "PERMISSION" AFTER THE FACT, which I did NOT GRANT and in fact adamently told Baty that absolutely NO records or information was to be given to ANYONE EXCEPT a properly documented official investigatorn or officer working in their official capacity on behalf of the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors until or unless I provided them with written permission beforehand. [WA Vet Board Exhibit #14]. 
3.    Any and all contact between/amongst the parties named here and Pfizer.
There was no contact between Dr. Hammond and Pfizer.  While Ms. Sanchez shared that Romy was on Rimadyl for arthritis, she further advised that she stopped treating Romy with the Rimadyl and that, it was her opinion that Romy seemed to improve.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On: Hammond/Five Corners and the "clip board lady" were INFORMED that ROMI had her first RIMADYL tablet given to her BY Williams/BVH on 4/13/04; that the instructions on the Williams/BVH container of 1 tablet, 2 times a day were followed until the afternoon of 4/20/04; that ROMI began having reaction symptoms on 4/20/04 and that DESPITE DVM Williams INSISTANCE that I KEEP giving ROMI the RIMADYL, I had discontinued it on the evening of 4/20/04.  I TOLD them ROMI had seemed "minimally" better on 4/21 and 4/22 after the RIMADYL was discontinued [just as I had told DVM Williams that same thing on 4/22/04], would drink a little water from a cup and eat a few bites of meat from a spoon, but that then she started getting worse again and then MUCH WORSE and that by 4/24/04 she obviously needed emergency treatment.  The entire outline of all of this information would have already been provided to the Hammond/Five Corners group by the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, LONG before this "rebuttal" letter was concocted.
 
As Hammond/Five Corners has now apparently ADMITTED that they did NOT EVER make ANY attempt to contact PFIZER, the manufacturer of RIMADYL that ROMI was having a massive toxic reaction to, this information will be forwarded to the Washington State Vet Board [as Part #9 Add-On] to be included as part of their review of the determination of the standard of veterinarian care falling somewhere between the range of gross incompetence/negilgence to veterinarian malpractice of Hammond/Meyer/Five Corners for not having made any effort to learn FIRST-HAND and/or verify/comfirm from Pfizer's experts the known potential risks/side effects that RIMADYL can and does produce which INCLUDE
 
the 'neurological problems'[in their records],
 
hypothermia [in their records],
 
seizures,[which they were told about but obviously did not put in their records despite my having described it in graphic detail and it appears in the WA Vet Board complaint at Part #3]
 
lack of appetite [in their records],
 
water refusal,
 
listlessness [in their records],
 
elevated liver enzymes [as shown on their lab work],
 
the 'nystagmus' [abnormal eye movements [listed in their records],
 
the inability to walk [in their records],
 
the dizziness [in their records],
 
 the disorientation [listed in their records]
 
the bladder problems [in their records],
 
which DVMs Hammond and Meyer blithly and incorrectly insisted were due to "a possible brain tumor", despite my having repeatedly told them it was a massive toxic RIMADYL reaction, and their collective incorrect diagnosis was eventually 'debunked' by the necropsy report after it was TOO LATE [WA Vet Exhibit #4].  According to Pfizer's own information on Rimadyl [WA Vet Exhibits #24, #31, #32, #33, #35, #36. #38, #40, #41] those dogs who do experience what the FDA/CVM refers to as an "ADE" or adverse drug reaction to Rimadyl usually recover with proper treatment.
 
4.    An itemized billing of the $1,100.00 necropsy charges.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital charged Ms. Sanchez $990.00 for the necropsy.  The actual invoice was $1,100.00 less a senior discount of $110.00.  Ms. Sanchez has advised that she was originally advised that she was originally advised by Dr. Meyer that the charge for this service would be around $500.00 but would need to contact the laboratory to determine the exact price. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE: the above is true.
 
The following morning our office contacted the laboratory to determine the exact price and was advised of the specific necropsy fee. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: There WAS "NO FOLLOWING MORNING" UNLESS Hammond/Five Corners is NOW stating that on Monday, 4/26/04, they contacted the lab and found out what the LAB was going to CHARGE THEM.  I have not been 'privy' to that information but it SHOULD HAVE BEEN ITEMIZED on the necropsy bill that's been repeatedly requested/demanded, but never produced, when it was learned and NOTHING was 'itemized' other than the charge of $1100.00 less the 10% senior discount of $110.00, and the $990.00 balance PAID IN FULL THAT SAME DAY, 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m. per the Master Card records receipt information previously provided here.
 
Our office contacted Ms. Sanchez and advised her of the $1,100.00 fee and Ms. Sanchez authorized us to proceed. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to the WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: The "clip board lady" 'contacted' me when I had stepped outside to compose myself just after ROMI was put to sleep on 4/25/04 around 8:00 a.m., and it was the 'clip board lady' who informed me that BEFORE she would make the call to the laboratory and officially arrange for the necropsy, I was to pay the full amount of the $1100 on the spot, which I did, [less the 10% senior discount which was THEN applied], via Master Card records receipt authorizing payment 4/25/04 at 8:07 a.m.
 
Please note that this is not a service that Five Corners Veterinary Hospital commonly provides,
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It's truly incredible that the Hammond/Five Corners group represents its self as an EMERGENCY FACILITY that's open and staffed 24/7 and yet NOW claims that it has NOT had sufficient experience with animals that are dying and/or that later die and/or owners who request necropsies to be able to handle this in an appropriate manner apparently, but it is still no excuse to refuse to provide itemized charges.
 
therefore, we had to contact the laboratory directly for an actual quote.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: I have no way of knowing what the Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory group INITIALLY charged or were GOING to charge for the necropsy and report of same to be done.  When I asked the 'clipboard lady' why "I" was going to be charged $1100 for the estimated $500 COST, the 'clip board lady's response was that the $500 was 'about right' for the necropsy and report and the additional amount ($600 charge) was necessary to cover the costs of a special laboratory transport/pick up (if it could be arranged because it was a Sunday), adequately refrigerating ROMI until her body was picked up by the lab and that since Five Corners did NOT have a sufficiently large enough refrigeration unit to accomodate ROMI's body, it was going to 'require a whole lot of ice'.
 
When I had NOT gotten ANY satisfaction regarding ANY records or ANY information, including the itemized necropsy billing, being provided by Hammond/Five Corners per my fax demand letter sent to Hammond/Five Corners on 5/24/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #12], I faxed a copy of that letter along with a cover letter to Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab on 5/19/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #17] stating that I would be calling Phoenix Central Lab on 6/01/04 and for DVM Murnane to either be available to speak to me or to instruct his office personnel to provide me with an contact e-mail address for him and for them to not hang up the phone on me again as they had previously done.
 
On 6/01/04, I called the toll free number for Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab [which had been provided on the necropsy report as part of their letterhead] and spoke to a woman who identified herself as "Linda Jewett" and she further stated that she was the "marketing person" and "in charge of everything" at Phoenix Central Lab, that she was the person who had received my fax letter and that she was the ONLY person that I could talk to.  "Linda Jewett" and I spent approximately two HOURS on that phone call, the details of which are outlined in the Washington Vet Board, Part #3, dated 6/10/04 which ADDS the Hammond/Five Corners group to the complaint [WA Vet Board Exhibit #49], which Hammond/Five Corners would have received a copy of from the WA Vet Board.  Amongst many other areas of discussion in the phone conversation with "Linda Jewett", [such as her refusal to provide me with an e-mail contact address for DVM Murnane, her refusal to allow me to speak to Dr. Murnane, etc.], "Linda Jewett" stated that she was "SHOCKED" that I had been charged $1100 (less 10% senior citizen discount) for the necropsy but she did NOT and WOULD not provide any information as to WHAT their usual rates were OR what the Hammond/Five Corners group had been charges and/or paid by Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab because she stated that the Phoenix Central Lab ONLY did work FOR veterinarians and NOT for pet owners.
 
There has STILL NOT BEEN ANY ITEMIZED NECROPSY BILL or STATEMENT PROVIDED TO ME by the Hammond/Five Corners group.  I STILL have NO information on ANY 'breakdown' OTHER than the 10% senior citizen discount.  There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors or as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.
 
5.    All of the demanded information in the faxed demand letters sent to both parties.
We have provided Ms. Sanchez all copies of medical and laboratory records.  This included the names of all the drugs used in Romy's treatment.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being submitted to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: It is true that to the best of MY knowledge the Hammond/Five Corners group has provided copies of all medical records, all laboratory records, the names of the drugs used in ROMI's treatment, but they have STILL NOT provided any comprehensive x-ray reports.  I was charged for and paid for on 4/24/04 as part of the first payment in the amount of $375.30 items "first two views x-rays" - $135.00; "Radiological consultation" - $35.00 and what I have to 'SHOW' for it is a copy of a 2-page form faxed multiple times to Williams/BVH that states ONLY: "Radiographs: VD/lateral chest radiographs show mildly enlarged heart silhouette, slightly increased bronchial pattern (consistent with age) [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3].
6.    The current status of all of my dog's bits and pieces as previously demanded.
Ms. Sanchez would need to work directly with Phoenix Central Laboratory regarding this request.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: This is a totally inappropriate and absurd response, an OBSCENE situation that's been CREATED botween Hammond/Five Corners and Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab where my dog's "bits and pieces/frozen carcass" continue to be HELD HOSTAGE and can only be viewed now as intentional stonewalling for the purpose(s) of covering up the EVIDENCE of the RIMADYL reaction, and a refusal of the Hammond/Five Corners group to accept any responsibility for WHATEVER arrangements and/or agreements between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group existed at the time the Hammond/Five Corners CONTRACTED with the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group OR possibly whatever has developed since my continuing to pursue the matter.  As previously outlined above, Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory group will NOT work with me because they did not have any sort of CONTRACT or AGREEMENT with ME.  They DID have a contract/agreement with the Hammond/Five Corners group regarding my dead dog and "Linda Jewett", in addition to refusing to provide me with any e-mail address contact for DVM Murname, or to allow me to speak to him, or allow me to arrange for a time when he would be available to speak to me, additionally informed me that they NEVER deal directly with pet owners, but ONLY work WITH and/or FOR VETERINARIANS.  This information IS and WAS within the total control of Hammond/Five Corners, unless of course there's been a 'falling out' between/amongst the two parties, and/or other subsequent 'arrangements' and or 'deals' between/amongst them, and it WAS and STILL IS the duty and obligation of the Hammond/Five Corners group to provide me with this information and it is totally inexcuseable to continue to avoid responsibility just because the Hammond/Baty/Five Corners group stated that "they did not want to be in the middle of this", and "were opting out".
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors or as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.   
7.    A full refund of monies paid to Five Corners.
Ms. Sanchez was presented an initial estimate for medical treatment for Romy, which she approved with her signature.  Subsequent medical treatment and associated costs was discussed with the owner who approved over the telephone by authorizing payment on her credit card.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It is true that during the entire time that I was at Five Corners, I was continuously being handed estimates of anticipated treatment charge printouts by "the clipboard lady".  It is also true that every set of charges that was presented to me was paid in full by me.  The issue here is not whether anticipated charges were presented and the issue here is not whether those charges were paid; the issue that is STILL HERE is the ongoing failure/refusal of the Hammond/Five Corners group to have kept to their OWN original ESTIMATED charges for services for the initial emergency treatment [WA Vet Board Exhibit #5] which stated:  "Initial Emergency Treatment Authorization, initial emergency stabilization costs may range from $200-#350.  This may include initial critical tests and treatments (IV catheters, IV fluids, pain medications/other medications, initial bloodwork and radiographs): YES, I authorize these initial expenses for further care [Sanchez initials]; Medical Consent, cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): YES, I authorize CPR for my pet (additional estimated cost of $100-$200) [Sanchez initials]
AND to provide an ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN of the necropsy charge of $1100.00 (irrespective of the 10% senior discount).  It would appear from the "rebuttal statement" that the Hammond/Five Corners' failure/refusal to have stuck with their original estimated charges, not withstanding the continuous activities of the "clipboard lady", AND to provide an itemized breakdown of the necropsy charge is due to their apparent inability to JUSTIFY those charges and as long as they do NOT have to JUSTIFY those charges, it is apparently their belief and/or position that they can continue to KEEP monies they are or may NOT be ENTITLED to.
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.
 
8.    A replacement dog of like quality/training and a written apology from both parties that includes an explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory.
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital does not provide replacement animals. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  As it is beginning to appear more and more apparent. with additional information being provided to WA Vet Board and from Pfizer, the manufacturer of the drug RIMADYL, that my dog had an massive adverse reaction to the RIMADYL, there are very serious issues here regarding the Hammond/Five Corners group with respect to their failure/refusal to get the proper and necessary information to be able to properly treat my dog's condition,WHEN THEY WERE NOT ONLY PROVIDED WITH THE CORRECT DIAGNOSIS BY ME, BUT WERE ALSO GIVEN THE INTERNET WEBSITE [www.srdogs.com] INFORMATION to be able to CONTACT PFIZER at the toll free phone number PFIZER has for just that purpose.  Responsible/competent veterinarians have a DUTY to make a CORRECT diagnosis so that they CAN provide appropriate and adequate treatment, PARTICULARLY when they are GIVEN ALL of the CORRECT information to BEGIN WITH. Having failed miserably to correctly diagnose to be able to provide appropriate treatment, they are now being given the opportunity to mitigate the damages that ensued via a 'replacement animal of like quality/training', and while they certainly can not be forced to do so, continuing to refuse to accept any responsibility for their failures merely shows the 'ethics challenges' involved in the situation.
 
In reference explanation of why there is no BBB listing for the Phoenix Central Laboratory, this information would need to be provided by Phoenix.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: The Hammond/Five Corners group has been asked to provide information of what THEY KNEW about Phoenix Central Laboratory ONLY and as such their response is not responsive but merely EVASIVE and stonewalling.
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.   
9.    Why Hammond/Five Corners did NOT contact Pfizer of[or] IF they did, when they did and for what purpose.
According to Dr. Hammond, there was no request to contact Pfizer nor was there evidence of any medical connection between Romy's symptoms presented to Five Corners being related to Rimadyl administration.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement now being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  Dr. Hammond/Five Corners group WAS TOLD [NOT requested] to contact Pfizer; was TOLD Pfizer had a 1/800 number specifically for veterinarians to use for verifying the symptoms of RIMADYL toxicity and for getting the necessary treatment information in order to give sufficient appropriate medical care for a dog's survival.  Even IF I HAD NOT provided that information to Hammond and the "clip board lady" [which I DID PROVIDE], COMMON SENSE would dictate that such information SHOULD BE OBTAINED from Pfizer in order for the Hammond/Five Corners to verify the symptoms, make a CORRECT diagnosis and from there to be able to provide the appropriate treatment and to be AWARE of what they were dealing with as to ROMI's condition.  THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT DONE.  Although I DID SO, it is NOT the pet owners "responsibility" to PROVIDE the CORRECT diagnosis AND to provide the information on how the Hammond/Five Corners group could VERIFY the symptoms and GET the proper treatment information.  An ETHICAL veterinarian would accept responsibility for having totally 'missed the boat' on an incorrect diagnosis, PARTICULARLY when they WERE GIVEN all of the information from the beginning and were continuously given that information, as they WERE and as reflected in THEIR OWN RECORDS.
10.    Upon what basis Dr. Hammond/Five Corners utilized the alleged services of Dr. Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory and the credentials of said laboratory.
At the request of Ms. Sanchez, Dr. Meyer of Five Corners Veterinary Hospital arranged for a necropsy
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  It is true that I asked Dr. Meyer to arrange for a necropsy.
 
to be completed by Phoenix Central Laboratory. 
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE  [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: It is NOT true that "I" asked for Phoenix Central Laboratory or any SPECIFIC laboratory by NAME.  I had NO INFORMATION about ANY laboratories and it was the CHOICE MADE by the Hammond/Five Corners.
 
Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their credentials.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  While it is true that Phoenix Central Laboratory can provide their own credentials, that is NOT the ISSUE here.  The issue is that the Hammond/Five Corners group CHOSE Murnane/Phoenix Central Laboratory to provide the necropsy and report of the necropsy, and the QUESTION(s) at issue are:
UPON WHAT BASIS WAS THAT CHOICE MADE by the Hammond/Five Corners group? 
 
WHAT INFORMATION about Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab did the Hammond/Five Corners group HAVE as to the "qualifications" and/or "credentials" of Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab when THEY made that decision? 
 
And FURTHER, WHAT was the AGREEMENT reached between the Hammond/Five Corners group and the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group to perform a necropsy and provide a necropsy report and the CHARGES between THEM as well as what agreement/arragement was made between them for my dog's body AFTER the necropsy was completed ?
 
WHAT was the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group PAID BY the Hammond/Five Corners group to perform a necropsy and provide a necropsy report?
 
WHAT steps, in what order and at what time(s) were the alleged REFRIGERATION activities done/performed BY the Hammond/Five Corners group?
 
WHAT 'instructions' [or LACK of same] were given BY the Hammond/Five Corners group with respect to the 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' of my dog's body for AFTER the necropsy had been completed?
 
WHEN the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group REFUSED to give me any information what-so-ever, EXACTLY WHAT alleged instructions/information was given to the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group BY the Hammond/Five Corners group?
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item.   
11.    Whether Ms. Jewett is actually and officially employed by Phoenix Central Laboratory.
This should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  In the Hammond/Five Corners group's response to the Sanchez complaint, dated 9/08/04, on page 2, second from the last paragraph, last sentence of same, signed by DVM Hammond, the statement is made by Hammond: ". . . Ms. Sanchez was provided with contact information for Ms. Linda Jewett at Phoenix Labs regarding "Romy's" necropsy and the release of the remains". 
 
I was NEVER given the name of "Linda Jewett" until I called the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab on 6/01/04 aat their toll free phone number [which I obtained from the necropsy report letterhead which does NOT list "Linda Jewett"] and spoke to a woman who identified herself as "Linda Jewett", who claimed that she was "the marketing person, in charge of everything" and had stated that she had received my faxed demand that included the faxed demand letter sent to the Hammond/Five Corners group on 5/25/04 and that it was "her territory and/or area of responsibility".
 
GIVEN the statement above made by Hammond/Five Corners, what alleged knowledge of "Linda Jewett" did the Hammond/Five Corners group have?
 
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item. 
12.    What authority Phoenix Central Laboratory is authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Again, this question should be directed to Phoenix Central Laboratory.
 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement being provided to WA Vwt Board as Part #9 Add-On]:  GIVEN that the Hammond/Five Corners group CHOSE to contract the services of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab group to perform the necropsy and provide the necropsy report, and GIVEN that the Murnane/Phoenix Lab group claims, per "Linda Jewett", that they do all business exclusively with veterinarians and not pet owners, the question/issue here is: 
WHAT information, if any, did the Hammond/Five Corners group have as to whether the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab is authorized to do business in the State of Washington?
 
WHAT information, if any, did the Hammond/Five Corners group have as to the "credentials" of the Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab to DO necropsies?
And ONCE AGAIN, there is absolutely NO VALID REASON why this information cannot be provided to me by the Hammond/Five Corners group and it certainly should not be difficult for the Hammond/Five Corners group to put that information in writing, sign it and provide it to me, UNLESS they are covering up something and/or have provided different and/or 'conflicting information' to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors
 
OR as the alternative MIDDLE GROUND OFFER that I'm reqired to make, ONCE AGAIN that a TRUTHFUL and COMPLETE WRITTEN and SIGNED explanation as to why Hammond/Five Corners will NOT provide this, if they CONTINUE to fail/refuse to provide this item. 
As listed above, we have provided Ms. Sanchez with copies of all medical records, laboratory reports, necropsy report from Phoenix Central Laboratory and all invoices related to this case.  Additionally, we have advised Ms. Sanchez that she should contact Phoenix Central Laboratory directly regarding obtaining access to Romy and any questions regarding the services they provided.
 
    SANCHEZ RESPONSE [and statement provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]: Rather than to literally continue to "beat a dead dog to death", the above self-serving paragraph has been responded to specifically in each of the previous sections. 
 
    SANCHEZ RESPONSE: OTHER 'issues' not contained in the Hammond/Five Corners "rebuttal" here, but were contained in the Hammond/Five Corners group response to the complaint dated 9/08/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #78] are addressed below:
 
1.    "Ms. Sanchez presented her dog "Romy" to this facility as an emergency case on 24 April 2004.  On presentation the dog was unable to stand on her own and unable to support her own weight when lifted."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.  Per WA Vet Board Exhibit #3 from Hammond/Five Corners group: "Presenting Complaint: not eating/drinking, won't get out of her crate."
 
B.  Per WA Vet Board Exhibit #113 from Hammond/Five Corners group: "4/24/04, 2:50 p.m. On 4/03 went to BVH.  They put dog on Rimadyl for arthritis. 0 (client) says after a couple days dog stopped eating and was lethargic.  0(client) took dog off of Rimadyl, seemed to improve.  In last 36 hours, per 0(client) dog won't eat/drink 0(client) doesn't think dog can stand, won't leave crate. (R) eye red & w/discharge."
 
C.  Per WA Vwt Board Exhibit #5 from Hammond/Five Corners group records, hand written by Sanchez on 4/24/04:  "Reason for visit: RIMADYL REACTION"
 
 2.  "She had severe neurologic symptoms, was hypothermic, had conjunctivitis, and a urinary tract infection.  Routine blood chemistries showed that she had elevated liver enzymes."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.    WA Vet Board Exhibit #3: from Hammond/Five Corners group records: "Assessment:  Open diagnosis. Neurologic disease (rule out neoplasic, vestibular syndrome), hepatophy (age related?) medication related?), conjunctivitis.  Other: Gave owner guarded prognosis.  Advised owner that even if the heptopathy responds to supportive care there is still a neurologic process going on which may or may not be treatable.  Advised owner that it is highly unlikely that this condition is solely because of the Rimadyl therapy.  Admitted for supportive care.  Advised owner if there is no improvement (especially neurologically) within 24 hours that either a neurology consult or euthanasia will need to be considered."
 
B.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #4 from Murnane/Phoenix Central Lab preliminary necropsy report: "The cause of death was euthanasia.  Grossly there was no obvious described CNS [central nervous system] signs."
 
C.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #24, from Pfizer:  "RIMADYL, like other drugs, may cause some side effects.  Serious but rare side effects have been reported in dogs taking NSAIDS, including RIMADYL.  Serious side effects can occur with or without warning and in rare situations result in death."
 
D.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #___, from Pfizer:  Rimadyl, like other drugs of its class, is not free from adverse reactions. Owners should be advised of the potential for adverse reactions and be informed of the clinical signs associated with drug intolerance. Adverse reactions may include decreased appetite, vomiting, diarrhea, dark or tarry stools, increased water consumption, increased urination, pale gums due to anemia, yellowing of gums, skin or white of the eye due to jaundice, lethargy, incoordination, seizure, or behavioral changes. . . . For more information about Rimadyl, call 800-720-DOGS (3647) or consult your veterinarian.  To report a suspected adverse reaction, call Pfizer Animal Health at 1-800-366-5288. . . . Signs of Rimadyl intolerance may include appetite loss, vomiting and diarrhea, which could indicate rare but serious side effects involving the digestive tract, liver or kidneys. If these signs occur, discontinue Rimadyl therapy and contact your veterinarian.
3.    "Ms. Sanchez was given a summary of initial exam findings and was offered a referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined. 
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s)
 
A.  WA Vet Exhibit #3 from Hammond/Five Corners records: "Other: . . . Advised owner that if there is no improvement (especially neurological) within 24 hours that either a neurology consult or euthanasia will need to be considered." [NOTE: The Hammond/Five Corners group in their BBB response to the Sanchez complaint, dated 9/08/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #78] makes the statement "Ms. Sanchez . . . was offered referral to a board certified veterinary neurologist, which she declined."will need to be considered . . . within 24 hours" is NOT the same as "offered referral" and is yet another prime example of self-serving and contradictory statements made by the Hammond/Five Corners group.  ROMI was not given 24 hours; ROMI was admitted 4/24/04 just before 4:00 p.m. and euthanized approximately 16 hours later, on 4/25/04 before 8:00 a.m. and ON THE BASIS CLAIMED BY DVM MEYER that the CORRECT DIAGNOSIS was most likely "A BRAIN TUMOR" or other very severe "neurological problem". NOTE: this report was faxed to Williams/BVH on 4/25/04, then again on 5/04/04 [WA Vet Board Exhibit #3] and then apparently yet AGAIN on 5/19/04 at 12:00 p.m. according to their own records [now being submitted as WA Vet Board Part #9 Add-On].  The very FIRST time I saw this referred to record was on 5/08/04 where it had been included in the records packet I had requested and picked up on that date.
4.    "On presentation, and during several subsequent conversations with Ms. Sanchez, she indicated that she was sure "Romy's" illness was secondary to the administration of Rimadyl that had been prescribed by the regular veterinarian.  Despite assurances by myself and later by Dr. Rachel Meyer, that Rimadyl toxicity does not cause neurologic signs, Ms. Sanchez was unwilling to hear our professional opinions."
SANCHEZ RESPONSE(s) [and statement being provided to WA Vet Board as Part #9 Add-On]:   
 
A.  From their own letter to the BBB dated 9/08/04 the Hammond/Five Corners group now ADMITS that I repeatedly TOLD them that ROMI's condition was caused by RIMADYL toxicity. From that same letter the Hammond/Five Corners group now ADMITS they kept ON DENYING that RIMADYL can cause neurologic signs.
 
B. WA Vet Board Exhibit #86: On 9/14/04 I received an e-mail from Pfizer's Dr. Tina Wahlstrom which stated: ". . . the incident involving your dog Romy was reported to us by Dr. Williams on July 12, 2004.  It was submitted to FDA by Pfizer Animal Health on July 23, 2004." GIVEN that Williams/BVH never SAW much less examined ROMI after the one visit to him on 4/13/04 in which he prescribed/dispensed the RIMADYL and that he continued to DENY that RIMADYL was involved with and/or related to her symptoms [WA Vet Board Exhibits #1 and #2] on 4/20/04 and again on 4/22/04, HOW would Williams/BVH then be ABLE to have any FIRST HAND information to FILE an ADE RIMADYL report with Pfizer on 7/12/04 [WA Vet Exhibit #86] BUT from the MANY fax copies of ROMI's records provided to Williams/BVH sent FROM the Hammond/Five Corners group WHILE the Hammond/Five Corners group CONTINUES to DENY a RIMADYL reaction to this very date?  While this entire scenario definitely flies in the face of REASON, it does show a complete and total REFUSAL of the Hammond/Five Corners group to LISTEN to anything from ANYONE [not from me, not from Pfizer, not from the FDA/CVM, not from Williams/BVH] or to accept any sort of responsibility for the role they played in my dog's unnecessary, needless, horrific death and the apparent current status of all of her 'bits and pieces/frozen carcass' have been HELD HOSTAGE this past 6 MONTHS.
 
C.  WA Vet Board Exhibit #80:  "Carprofen [RIMADYL] FDA/CVM Adverse Drug Reactions . . . neurological disorder, vestibular disorder, CNS disorder, nystagmus [abnormal eye movements, both rotary and lateral], eye disorder, eye puritis [infection], conjunctivitis, eye discharge, hyperthermia, anorexia [not eating], nausea, ataxia [lack of coordination], staggering, depression/lethargy [listlessness], confusion, liver enzymes high, anemia, platelets low, convulsions, WBC high, BUN high, bilirubin high, creatinine high, abnormal urine color, abnormal urine odor, polyuria, urinary incontinence, cystitis, urine casts, body fever, grinding of teeth, liver disorder, kidney failure, kidney lesions, weakness, trembling, vomiting, G.I. ulcers, G.I. perforation, gastroenteritis, colitis, pancreatitis, pancreas lesions, bile acids high, liver lesions, collapse, palor of mucus membranes, heart disorder, heart lesions. . .".
Sincerely,
 
[signed]
Melanie W. Caviness, D.V.M.
Medical Director
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
    and
[signed]
Margaret K. Baty
Operations Manager
Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
 
Provided to the Better Business Bureau via e-mail at: deborah@thebbb.org and dupont.bbb@hurdmanivr.com as the website apparently could not accept/handle it for entering into the box provided, most likely due to its length as well as other technical difficulties such as the spacing, underlining, 'red' writing, etc., on 11/01/04.
 
Ginger Sanchez
 
 
Download a copy of this complaint
 
*** Your response has been recorded, and will be reviewed by the BBB. No further action is required of you at this time. ***

Part#6

 
11/04/04
Better Business Bureau
 
Re: CASE #22016444 - Sanchez vs. Hammond/Five Corners
 
I see from the on-line site that this matter has been closed as "resolved".  Can you tell me what "resolved" means, since Five Corners Veterinary never provided anything that I requested in the original complaint and never provided any response to my "required middle ground offers" either?
 
I can defintely understand the case being closed, but why was the case not closed as "UNresolved"? 
 
I have not received any sort of notification from you yet regarding this matter, unless it was sent by regular U.S. Mail and still en route.  Are you able to answer the above questions via e-mail?
 
Thank you.
 
Ginger Sanchez
e-Mail [ONLY]: GingerLSanchez@aol.com
 
 

The Better Business Bureau serving Oregon and Western Washington

Complaint System

BBB CASE#: 22016444

Complaint filed by: Ginger Sanchez    (More)
Complaint filed against: Five Corners Veterinary Hospital    (More)
Complaint status:

Activity

Date
Activity
Description
11/03/2004  Case Closed AJR   
11/03/2004  Inform Business - Case Closed AJR   
11/03/2004  Inform Consumer - Case Closed AJR   
11/03/2004  Bureau judged complaint resolved   
11/01/2004  Consumer rejects business' final offer  The below three [3] items are true copies of the "rebuttal letter" and accompanying cover letter of the Hammond/Five Corners group addressed to the Better Business Bureau regarding the complaint of Ginger Sanchez, Case#22016444 as provided to Ginger Sanchez by the Better Business Bureau with the BBB cover letter by U.S. Mail received 10/29/04 and postmarked 10/27/04 and which are now 'labeled' and hereby assigned Exhibit# 110, #111 and #112 as indicated, for submission to the Washington State, Veterinary Board of Governors, Case#2004-04-0008 VT against Williams/BVH, Hammond/Meyer/Baty/Five Corners and Murnane/Jewett/Phoenix Central Lab and are being provided to the State of Washington, Veterinary Board of Governors as "Part 9" of the Sanchez complaint filed 4/28/04 and currently still under investigation.
 
10/27/2004  Manually Forward Final Response to Consumer   
10/27/2004  Re-open a Complaint   
10/13/2004  Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Business - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Inform Consumer - Case Closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  Bureau judged complaint to be closed UNRESOLVED   
10/13/2004  No Response from Business re: Consumer Rebuttal   
09/27/2004  Forward Consumer Rebuttal to Business 
 
Download a copy of this complaint
 
*** This complaint has been closed. If you have more information to provide to the bureau regarding this complaint, please click here. ***

 

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott 

 

THE END - 11/04/04

from:

11/04/04
Better Business Bureau

 

We have received your most recent correspondence in the above mentioned complaint case.
You have indicated that you are NOT satisfied with the business' response in the matter.
However, in the judgment of the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the business has responded by addressing the disputed issues and making reasonable efforts to resolve the complaint. Therefore, the BBB is unable to require the business to respond further to your complaint.
A summary of this complaint case can be seen by clicking
http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsumer.html?cid=22016444&auth=3fvwc4.

Sincerely,
Better Business Bureau
Complaint Department

 BBB Reliability Report

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

General Information

Original Business Start Date: April 1962
Local Business Start Date: April 1962
Principal: Dr Melanie Caviness, Medical Director
Phone Number: (206) 243-2982
Membership Status: No
Type-of-Business Classification: Veterinarians

Customer Experience

Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau. One complaint has been processed by the bureau in its three-year reporting period. Although the customer disputed the company's response, based on BBB experience the company properly addressed all the issues of the complaint. To have a Satisfactory Record with the Bureau, a company must be in business for at least 12 months, properly and promptly address matters referred to it by the Bureau, and be free from an unusual volume or pattern of complaints and law enforcement action involving its marketplace conduct. In addition, the Bureau must have a clear understanding of the company's business and no concerns about its industry

Additional Information

Additional TOB Classifications:

Animal Hospitals

Report as of 11/04/2004
Copyright© 2004 Better Business Bureau®, Inc.

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards.


SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION
per Webster's on-line dictionary:
 
Main Entry: sat·is·fac·to·ry
Pronunciation:
"sa-t&s-'fak-t(&-)rE
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: giving satisfaction :
ADEQUATE
- sat·is·fac·to·ri·ly /-t(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- sat·is·fac·to·ri·ness noun
 
Main Entry: res·o·lu·tion
Pronunciation:
"re-z&-'lü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French resolution, from Latin resolution-, resolutio, from resolvere
Date: 14th century
1 : the act or process of reducing to simpler form: as a : the act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones b : the act of answering :
SOLVING c : the act of determining d : the passing of a voice part from a dissonant to a consonant tone or the progression of a chord from dissonance to consonance e : the separating of a chemical compound or mixture into its constituents f (1) : the division of a prosodic element into its component parts (2) : the substitution in Greek or Latin prosody of two short syllables for a long syllable g : the analysis of a vector into two or more vectors of which it is the sum h : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light
2 : the subsidence of a pathological state (as inflammation)
3 a : something that is resolved <made a resolution to mend my ways> b : firmness of resolve
4 : a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group
5 : the point in a literary work at which the chief dramatic complication is worked out
synonym see
COURAGE
 
Main Entry: caveat emp·tor
Pronunciation:
-'em(p)-t&r, -"tor
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin,
let the buyer beware
Date: 1523
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk


Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy


UPDATE: 12/11/04

BBB Reliability Report

Five Corners Veterinary Hospital
15707 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98148

General Information

Original Business Start Date: April 1962
Local Business Start Date: April 1962
Principal: Dr Melanie Caviness, Medical Director
Phone Number: (206) 243-2982
Membership Status: No
Type-of-Business Classification: Veterinarians

Customer Experience

Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record record with the Bureau. Complaints have been processed by the bureau in its three-year reporting period. Although the customer disputed the company's response, based on BBB experience the company properly addressed all the issues of the complaints. To have a Satisfactory Record with the Bureau, a company must be in business for at least 12 months, properly and promptly address matters referred to it by the Bureau, and be free from an unusual volume or pattern of complaints and law enforcement action involving its marketplace conduct. In addition, the Bureau must have a clear understanding of the company's business and no concerns about its industry.

Additional Information

Additional TOB Classifications:

Animal Hospitals


Report as of 12/11/2004
Copyright© 2004 Better Business Bureau®, Inc.

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards.

The BBB is in business to MAKE MONEY - they CHARGE their clients/customers who are BUSINESSES to join and they provide "reliability reports" FOR the BUSINESSES - there is NO cost to the "consumer" to get a report, so YOU can figure it out from there.


"All truth passes through three stages:
First it is Ridiculed.
[phase completed above]
Second, it is Violently Opposed.
[phase completed above]

Third, it is Accepted as being Self-Evident."
[I am leaving this phase up to "KARMA"]
~Arthur Schopenhauer (1778-1860)
 

 

May my beloved partner ROMI rest in peace  -

no matter wherever her bits and pieces/frozen carcass may be held hostage.

 

[What's in YOUR "urn"?]

Copyright: 2004 Ginger Sanchez. All Rights Reserved.

This Website Built and Hosted for Free at
Bravenet.com