"Vindictive review. We had no choice but to terminate further interaction with this client based on the June 3, 2014 negative review including the statement, “We will be using someone else next time!” A veterinarian is a very personal decision for each family, and it's not always a great fit. Fortunately Madison has many different veterinarians to choose from. I replied and let it go. Further, we are not obligated to continue an antagonistic business or medical relationship, as it is detrimental to the pet first and foremost, and unpleasant for all the people involved. After their June review and statement they were going elsewhere, their account with us was closed. If they meant what they said in June, imagine my surprise when they returned. It was to get a refill of a prior prescription which could have been filled by any small animal veterinarian in the country, or even online. This was a small transaction that took a few minutes, and involved no appointment, no veterinarian's nor technician's education, no decision on anyone's part other than to refill a prescription. With no appointment nor professional work of any kind to rate, they cannot have a clear conscience or reason to give us “F” for Professionalism, Punctuality, Responsiveness, and Quality other than to be spiteful. Despite “firing” us in their June review, after this one-time medication refill in November, I felt it was necessary to send them a “firing letter”, which I unfortunately have to send out a few times a year when an owner is not a good fit for my practice. My standard “firing letter” does state all interactions will be forwarded to the new veterinarian(s), as it is part of the medical record. It also states that faxing records to another veterinarian is free. Our standard policy for over a decade is to require cash for photocopying records and postage for former clients; almost all former clients choose the free faxing. In short: Despite a terminated relationship, my staff made the judgment call to spare them another exam fee at another vet's office and to fill a prescription once, to allow their pet to get heartworm protection right away without delay. This grievous “review” is our reward, with zero consequence to the reviewer and permanent graffiti on my business' online wall."

"After looking at the medical record I was surprised at this review. There are some points that need clarification. The owner was offered, and they declined, any interaction with a veterinarian at their May 2014 visit. Concerns or questions could have been answered by a veterinarian that the technical staff could not. All vaccines given to this pet we consider necessary. In 2013, at the first visit (and Free First Exam) we reviewed what “the old vet” had done, and offered equivalent or better services. We recommended only one additional vaccine we honestly feel is a risk for dogs in Madison. The 2014 visit was merely updating the same vaccines “the old vet” had given plus the one we added in 2013. Heartworm testing and prevention is recommended for all Wisconsin dogs. MUCH more work was done for the pet in 2014 than merely the two vaccines listed in the “Description of Work”. I regret the customer had a less-than-A-level experience. I wish the owner had opted for an exam so questions could have been addressed by a veterinarian. -Dr.Christopher Pagel, Owner, Companion Animal Hospital"