Please see my review of DR. ATON MORDECHAI HOLZER's brief, unprofessional report and response to me via the American Medical Experts (AME)
business complaint on this website. Dr. Holzer not only failed to address the lip issue I had repeatedly requested of him
to comment on for my $1200 service fee to AME, but he/AME eventually emailed me
an unsigned commentary that was labeled report "draft."
Due to lingering facial changes, the crookedness in my lip
alignment worsened. There was no acne on
my lips (or inside the lower lip on the right where Samantha Reith lasered one
time and caused long-lasting sore); however, Samantha Reith from the office of Advanced
Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery (also known as Advance[d] Cosmetic Surgery
& Dermatology// Tahoe Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology// Advanced
Dermatology) handwrote that she lasered my "vermillion [lip] border" "38" times
at admittedly "higher settings" (not mentioning any other facial parts that she
lasered). Notably, the office falsely
claimed in writing that Samantha Reith was a Nevada Board Certified
Aesthetician specializing in medical aesthetics.
Samantha Reith also did not note in her record that I waited
for her after the appointment to tell her that she hadn't hit the acne spot
that I was seeking some kind of dermatological treatment for. She missed it the second time also as the
bruising mark showed. It is reasonable to assume her actions were either
unbelievably careless or blatantly intentional.
The Minnesota Board of Cosmetologist Examiners (a state where Samantha
Reith once worked) warns that
the term medical estheticians' may be
misleading, inaccurate, and deceptive to the public and those receiving
services. Specifically, consumers may be
misled to believe that a medical esthetician' has some type of advance medical
training that has been licensed, registered, or sanctioned by the state of
Minnesota or that the licensee has been authorized by the state to perform some
type of medical service. Due to the
potential for the public confusion and concern for public safety, the Board
would like to caution all licensees to monitor their advertising to ensure that
they are fully and accurately disclosing their license status with the
Board. Estheticians using misleading or
inaccurate terms in an advertising may be subject to discipline under section
According to Hennepin County, MN public records, in the
spring of 2009 Samantha Reith was ordered by the owner of Renew Your Skin to stay away from this business where she wanted to
work or she "would be removed by the police." On June 3, 2009, Samantha Reith,
plaintiff, failed to appear for her Minnesota court hearing and was not awarded
monetary damages in her civil case.
The other tech (the Stateline, Nevada, dermatology office
would not provide her name) lasered three times on my cheek, totaling at least
42 hits to my small face, stated that Samantha's settings were actually much higher
than hers. This contradicts what
Samantha Reith handwrote on the final paperworkthat she (Samantha) used a
lower laser setting than the second tech.
Although I requested to see my records, the office would not let me see
my actual file. They gave me a "copy" of
it many days later after they had said on different occasions that it would be
ready and available for me after my repeated requests.
Although Samantha Reith did not record in the patient note
all her lasering areas to my face, my photos show bruising in questionable
places that she didn't report, and the swelling remains centered just below my
bottom lip. Other consequences include changes in color, texture, volume, lip
sensation, and shrinkage. Dr. Holzer did actually attest in his "medical
expert" report that facial damage was done to me; however, he did not explain what
a proper lasering procedure might be in such a case, an omission in his report that
Attached below are some articles and postings with cautionary
information for consumers on laser damage that I had highlighted and sent to
Dr. Holzer when I sought his medical review of my case. He did not refer to them but did acknowledge
and wrongly record that I sent him only one article. The other articles that were included are
referenced below. He failed to comment
on the scores of numerous online complaints from people like me who also were
dismissed in comparable cases. Although
many patients have been voicing complaints online on many websites for some
timeeven with some doctors concurringdermatologists, as a whole, continue to
claim there is nothing in the literature reporting negative results from lasers. They wrongly continue to ignore patients
who've been physically and psychologically damaged.
In 2015 I provided
the following articles for Dr. Mordechai Holzer when I submitted my case for
review. He did not respond:
"Increased Risk of Litigation Associated with Laser Surgery
by Nonphysician Operators" in JAMA
Dermatology journal 2014
and article in Dermatology World
Journal (September 9, 2014) with the statement by Dr. Dover,"Where we see a
problem is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment. If one of these is missing, there's a
potential problem. If all four of those
are missing, you're really asking for trouble."
"Dermatologists continue to press for medspa regulation to
protect patient" article (9/14) by Ruth Carol (in Safety First)
"Laser surgery lawsuits against doctors on the rise" 2013
article by Genevra Pittman (in Health News)
"Lawsuits Involving Laser Treatments by Non-Docs on the
Rise" (2013 HealthDay News article)
warning by the American Academy of Dermatology
"Cosmetic care via laser can be risky" from The Republic 10/2014
Below are the sample
reports from doctors and patients that I sent to Dr. Mordechai Holzer in 2015
as part of my case. He neither addressed
nor acknowledged any of them:
websites/ research/ reports of laser harm/damage:
(talks about facial depressions?)
VBeam causing nerve damage
Operators discussing problems w/ IPL tx
quotes taken from online sources above:
Posted by redbysciton
» Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:45 am
These posts in
a users forum reveal treatment problems:
Has anyone had any experiences with the Nd Yag 1064 in treating telangiectasias
or spider veins? I have recently added that on my Joule platform. Quite
disappointing really! It made a dent on my model's nose though not much changed
for the telangiectasia."
12.5 | Registered Commenterchinh le
- See more at: http://medicalspamd.com/cosmetic-ipl-la
I Wonder how the poor model feels about the dent in her nose.
Here is a provider wondering why he is seeing worsening telagectasia in Is
after treatment w/IPL (Sciton BBL):
"Dear Dr. Chavelas,
Did you ever had in the beginnings worsening of cuperosis after treating with
I just saw another client of mine today with more cuperosis than first time she
came to me 1 month ago.
She was treated with 560 nm small addapter 22-24 j 10 ms 20c
Can you explain why some of the Is have this reaction?
I don't understand it.
I'll try treating them with Nd:yag as you said, but i'm trying to explain this
phenomena and i can't.
Thank you for your time.
03.19 | Steve
No actually i have not seen any worsening of cuperosis after treating with only
the BBL. But i have seen Is that they have not a very good result after just
one BBL treatment and i had to combine with the Nd YAG as i told you before.
Maybe your I was in this category and the worsening was a physical process of an
unsuccessful treatment. Another exlpanation is that maybe there was a small
burning after the session that could deteriorate your I.Which Fitz type had
been your I ?
03.20 | charry
Thank you dr. Chavelas ,
skintype 3 was the I. I'll add the Nd:Yag. We have the Reveal from Canfield
and we can monitor every little change, and i saw it was worse.
And it was not just one I, several, especially those with little vessels,
difuse redness is working very nice.
Do you think that undertreating can cause worsening? With 560nm 15j, 15 ms, 15c
- double pass i don't see always closure of the vessels.
Do you always see the closure of the vessels when doing a BBL 560 ? Maybe i'm
just affecting a little bit the vessel wall and not a fully closure, and
because of that the vessel will be more dilatated after the treatment. This is
the only explanation i have. Thank you again for sharing this information with
- See more at: http://medicalspamd.com/cosmetic-ipl-la
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:14 am
can be considered as a carcinogenic factor"
Posted by cveroleyva
» Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:07 pm
talks about increasing levels of heat to the skin.
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:43 am
Posted by DCNGA » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:24 pm
PLASTIC GOGGLES ARE NOT EYE PROTECTION,
unless they are specialized light/ray filtering goggles made specifically for
use with laser/light devices. You must have specialized eye protection, made
for use with laser/light devices to filter out the scattered rays/beams. Even
the device makers are clear about this that specialized eye protection is
REQUIRED. Many docs do not go to the expense of purchasing the specialized
goggles and only buy the types used at tanning salons. This is a very bad
thing. If you find out that you were only given non-specialized eye protection,
report them to your state medical board. Fill out a complaint with the FDA
about what has happened as well. This helps everyone and protects you as well
that you have reported the problem.
from J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2012 Jun;
As our understanding of the
biological efficacy of various wavelength distributions evolves, so to will the
range of IPL technology, particularly with regard to different wavelength
filters, pulse durations, pulse frequencies, and cooling modalities to protect
from side effects. The end result will be a widening domain of IPL's clinical
applications and indications. It will be incumbent on clinicians who use these
devices with regularity for such new and emerging indications to report their
clinical experiences in order to sustain our continued understanding of the
technology's long-term safety and efficacy profile.
light emitted from the IPL is composed of a spectrum of colours from different
wavelengths, enabling selective photo-absorption (light absorption) to
different targets. In other words, using the IPL is like using a group of
lasers in a single treatment. The heat generated by the absorbed energy causes
damage to the vessels or pigmented areas stimulating the body's own natural
DO NOT GET AN IPL, FRAXEL, OR ANY SIMILAR PROCEDURE!!! It is not
worth the risk!! I have been a member here for many years, but never wrote a
review. However, this is so important, that it needs to be said. I thought I
did my research and went to a highly regarded Medical Spa that was operated by
a doctor for my IPL. That was two weeks ago. I am now suffering SEVERE damage
and I am going to need plastic surgery to correct the problems. The settings
per the technician were conservative because it was my first (and only) IPL. I
have post IPL rosacea (which I never had before) and acne. My skin has a
wrinkly, orange peel texture too. This is the worst part...I woke up yesterday
with huge dents on my face which are going to require fat grafting. I also
found out that more damage will probably surface and my face will more than
likely loose all of the fat layer. I am horribly damaged!!! I am not the only
one...there are many, many more. Sometimes the fat loss and damage doesn't
appear until months after the IPL. I wish I would have known that there was
even a chance that this kind of damage could occur. I knew about the
possibility of redness, swelling, and bruising, but I did not know about the
fat loss and other complications. Many doctors claim that IPL can not do
this...IT CAN and IT HAS!!!! I am currently under the treatment of a very good
dermatologist and we are hoping that this process can be stopped with oral
I really wish I had done more extensive research before having
this procedure. I later found medical texts online stating (and showing) that
pinholes and "atrophic" scars can occur, usually from
"insufficient cooling." Then I found a study where the authors tested
a number of IPL machines, all unnnamed, and found variations as much as +/- 20%
from the manufacturers' specs in EVERY PARAMETER measured - fluence, pulse
rate, temperature, wavelength, etc. And this was after calibration. The
machines may not have been the same one used on me, but this worries me. Then I
read a paper finding an increase in lipid peroxidase levels (a marker for ageing/oxidative
stress) in IPL treated skin 6x HIGHER than from UV light. Another paper
suggested using topical antioxidants after tx to combat this. If I'd known
that, I would've been been slathering antioxidants under the vaseline!
I feel the one tx gave me the equivalent of years' worth of bad rosacea flares.
I have a close relative with severe rhinophyma, and I told the doc about my hx
and this relative before tx. I am now researching aftercare and hoping my skin
will eventually recover. Can I cover things up w/ mu? Mostly, but my routine is
now more complicated and requires more effort and mu than before the tx. Where
before I never needed moisturizer, now I must use Cerave CREAM AM & PM. Yet
I still have oily skin and breakouts! Bottom line: use extreme caution if you
have oily skin and an inflammatory type of rosacea that reacts badly to heat.
Any of the following could have caused my outcome: operator error, machine
error, or an unknown/ unpublicized contraindication to IPL, such as the
specific type of rosacea I have. I also now know that there is a great deal of
controversy among drs. over whether IPL helps or worsens melasma type
pigmentation. I was not told this - brochures and info given state it is safe,
"no downtime," gentler than laser, and effective for
hyperpigmentation and rosacea redness. Be cautious w IPL!
Hi It sounds like your laser that had horrible results is what I
have had, but called the v-beam laser. It is the worst laser I have ever used
or experienced. I do not recommend it. I think because of all of the skin
sensitizing ingreadients that you use to control your acne may have also not
helped. I think if you are going to get any laser you need to stop your topical
acne products for at least 7 days prior. I would like you to read the new book
by Perricone, for acne. It helps mainly for typical acne, not hormonal acne on
the chin. It also will help reduce your rosacea. What I learned from the book,
(I don't use his products) is mainly that I was eating a lot of foods like
corn, popcorn, sugars, dried fruits, fruit juice etc that were feeding my acne
or inflamation. When I changed my diet, my rosacea went down A LOT. I think
your face due to all that crap you have had to try as well as that bad laser
experience you face is easily inflamed and topically sensitive. Also, most
lasers are great, accept V-beam! Also whoever does the laser makes a difference
too. Some people don't know the right settings to use.
look older and different now with bad skin...just very aged. it is hard for me
because i am 41 but looked very young for my age, without wrinkles and i had
great skin. i was still getting carded every few months! darn. so, i went from
looking 30 to 50. it is like a bad horror film.
was only doing this for some slight hyperpigmentation and a few broken caps on
my nose. it destroyed my face and i am completely devastated.
it is three months since my last treatment and every time i look in the mirror
there are more scars and dents.
Now I have dents, scars and holes all across both cheeks and every day it gets
worse. I have been scarred for life by IPL and my cheeks have been completely
March 26, 2015 I received IPL only
6 weeks ago and have aged incredibly. I have wrinkles around my lips,
sagging skin and orange peel chin. I'm very sad to have lost my youth and
very worried about how quickly my face will continue to age.
is a double edged sword for those who've suffered fat loss or other damage from
lasers and IPL devices. The pain of showing that proof is difficult,
emotionally. Yet the proof IS the faces of those who've suffered damage from
these devices. When confronted, most doctors will not recognize the damage or
they will attribute the damage to something/anything other than the device. I'm
sure many doctors fear the legal repercussions but most Is want validation that
what they are seeing is real, most doctors fear being sued and won't
acknowledge it. It's a hamster wheel for victims
Wake Up!!! Do Not Do Fraxel or IPL!!
My damage was caused by IPL 6 months ago. Fraxel and IPL seem to be causing the
same damage. (Thermage nightmare?) I have fat loss in my entire face, eyelids,
cheeks, jaw line, along with scars, bumps in my skin, vision problems, pain in cheek,
jaw and brestbone (my chest was done also), broken blood vessesl and more!
There are suppose to be NO Burns, NO fat loss, NO permanent scaring, NO eye
problems, No permanent redness, NO hypopigmentation,NO depression with IPL or
Fraxel!! That is what the medical community around the states are telling their
patients. Doctors are lying to you! Dermatologists are lying to you! Plastic Surgeons
are lying to you. Nurses and Aestheticians are lying to you! Medical Boards are
lying to you! Manufactures are lying to you! The FDA and the Government are
lying to you! They are only interested in protecting this Billion Dollar
industry, and do not care about the severe damage it has caused to 1000's of
people. These procedures are the new "CASH COW" for the industry and
the manufacturers and doctors will go to great lengths to keep this from the
The people that did these procedures will tell you, "these devices
couldn't have done this damage, they don't go deep enough in to the skin---they
don't cause fat loss, they don't get hot enough---oh the burn scars will go
away in two years--you had eye protection on, you can't have eye problems-----and
the biggest lie, it's natural aging causing your skin to sag and face to lose
volume! These are the lies I am hearing in every damage case. NO ONE
prematurely ages 10-20 years in the matter of 4 Months.
Question your doctors about that. Ask him how much extra revenue he is making a
year by adding this device to his practice and then paying poorly trained
nurses and estheticians to do the damage. And yes, for the Professional Doctors
and Plastic Surgeons who have caused this damage, you are a disgrace, with
criminal intentions, who took a vow "do no harm, patient safety
first" but turned it into "admit no fault, offer no help, just
collect the cash and run" I would never wish this on my own worst enemy,
yet I can only hope that this would happen to doctors wives, daughters,
sisters, or mothers, so then you would understand the torment and hell you have
put us all in, a life of disfigurement, isolation, financial distress, and
emotional and psychological torture. And offering no help to any of us! Are
there any real doctors out there that actually care about people, if so, please
stand up! We need you.
As for the doctors who respond on this site, you owe these members the truth.
will comment this can happen and the next comments it cannot. You all know the
truth, it's in your seminars, lectures you attend, on doctors discussion
boards, and if you don't know the facts, either research it or don't comment.
You are jeopardizing hundreds of members by telling them these devices are
safe. Could it only be to try to harness more cosmetic business? Would you put
your own loved ones in harms way if you weren't sure whether they would be
damaged or not because you were not warned beforehand of possible permanent DNA
damage to your skin? I bet not.
No, these results don't happen to everyone, but to more than enough and that
number is growing, by 40 percent according the the AAD in 2009. There is tons
of research out there proving these machines cause this. Even papers from the
FDA discussing adverse events about botox
and injectibles and how long should they allow this to continue especially
since the damage is happening to healthy people! There are hundreds of victims
on various sites telling their stories of burns, fat loss, vision problems,
hypo scaring, etc. There are serious side effects happening, most irreversible,
that doctors, esthetians and the manufacturers are NOT telling us about. TAKE
PICTURES, THEY DO NOT LIE, KEEP TAKING PICTURES, THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT PROOF!
People need to start making noise to get attention drawn to this epidemic of
damage. These devices are in every town now, and unless everyone that has been
damages speaks up, hundreds of thousands of people will be victimized by this
in the future. Please, lets help each other!
“AME did not provide ethical or adequate service”
• Previous review
In April 2015 I experienced facial damage caused by laser treatment and sought recourse to correct the damage. A medical expert (Eric) from American Medical Experts (AME) confirmed in writing (October 2015) that facial damage is real, causing pronounced change with wrinkling, jowl formation, and volume loss in cheeks. Eric was a practicing dermatologist of 4 ½ years who had published one review on laser tattoo removal in his undisclosed organizations journal. I paid almost $1200 to receive an emailed copy of his report. I was informed that if I wanted an official copy of the report with his full name on it plus a copy of his CV, I would need to pay another $1200.
Although I had sought treatment for one acne spot (as indicated in the doctors medical note), I was lasered excessively in areas of no concern with the laser even burning the inside of my lower right lip. When the unsupervised technician did not laser the targeted area, I asked afterwards if she could try a second time to laser the spot, yet she missed again. Consequently, a bruise developed to the side of the acne spot, and the fact that the acne spot didnt show any change in the photos is further indication that she missed it completely. Technician wrote in her notes that she lasered my vermillion border, not an area for which I had sought treatment, nor did I have issues with my lips at that time. The result was change in lip shape, symmetry, sensation, thinning, and swelling. Tech did not note that she lasered anywhere else on my face, yet the bruising/scarring/widespread harm prove that she did.
Significantly, Eric, the medical expert, ignored key issues. He did not include comments about my lip change in his three-paragraph medical-expert report despite my repeated requests of him before and after he completed his opinion report to address my concerns. Nor did he address the technicians reported lasering intensity level that supposedly was triple the manufacturers recommended intensity level according to the number she wrote in her case notes. I believe the intensity level was even higher than what she reported in the patient note because when I returned to the office seeking help for the horrific facial results, the second unsupervised tech lasered my cheek to demo the harmlessness of lasering, commenting that her laser intensity level was much lower than what the first technician had used. Both technicians notes that I subsequently--and not without difficulty--obtained from the office state that the second technician actually used the next higher intensity level number up from what the first technician used for her intensity level. So what exactly is the truth? Is either tech providing it?
Eric, moreover, showed partiality. Despite my questioning in December 2015 his report (that extended into 2017 following my initial 2015 submission of photographs and record of treatment history), Eric declared in January 2016 that he accepted the doctor/technicians documentation as the official record of truth. He implied then, in 2016, that I was the one who had been lacking proof, that there was lack of photography in 26 photos that I had sent him with an absence of objective positioning angles and mouth movements (??). I dont know why he explained in a 2016 email that he had been unable to enhance the photos. He had not mentioned these issues to me in 2015 before he had made his decision. Significantly, in 2015, he had already determined from my photographs that damage had in fact been done to my face at the dermatology office where I had sought treatment.
He said scarring done to my face from lasering would be a worthy consequence for pursuing a legal case. Yes, I do have both red and white scarring changes in the pigmentation following the lasering, but the point is that after the lasering, my dermatologist had to subsequently refer me to a cosmetic surgeon for a facelift. This is an unbelievable consequence. Is pronounced change in facial structure that includes accelerated aging therefore not worthy of--not good cause for--pursuing a legal case? Yet Eric recommends taking legal action for unwanted pigment discoloration following improper treatment. This reasoning makes no sense whatsoever.
Furthermore, Erics report was partially wrong, incomplete, unprofessional, and poorly worded to the point of it not being comprehensible. For example, he incorrectly wrote that I submitted one laser article (from JAMA about the troubling trend in laser safety) when I actually had included other materials (including information from the American Academy of Dermatology) that discuss the dangers and harms of lasering, especially when performed by incompetent people.
Another error was Erics statement that I reported changes to my face on April 9 to the dermatology office. Not true, and the second techs note shows that I first returned to the office on April 3rd (after the April 1st laser) to show them the terrible laser consequences. My photographed facial changes are obvious between April 2 and April 8. The office doctor, relying only on memory of one short meeting with me, chose to report that he did not believe there was any notable change to my face. Eric did not state his opinion on what the dated photos from this six-day period revealed to him as a medical expert.
Eric also underreported the number of times my face was lasered. Even if he maintains his reliance only on the technicians notes and ignores my recorded treatment history, he will find his number to be in error (and thats not counting the one laser hit I went back for to try to have the spot targeted directly.) The first tech also did not make a note of the second laser attempt of the acne spot that I asked her to try redoing, the one acne spot I had sought help for. She still missed the spot the second time. Eric did not report this unrecorded incident or address it with regard to my photographs. (Incidentally, the office breached their contract by not photographing me before and after lasering as promised. The office had also not fully informed me in the patient consent form of all the lasering risks, nor had the tech provided me with proper goggles.)
Other errors, oversights, and oversimplifications in Erics report exist. For example, he wrote that I had a history of eczema despite there being no longstanding diagnosis. He also did not quite accurately describe the doctors treatment counseling of me. Erics overall language, however, is of much greater concern. His first paragraph he titles Facts. As mentioned, he gleaned his facts from the doctor/technicians notes without including my facts, my proof. His incomprehensible/unfinished key statements within his one-paragraph Discussion section are other significant oversights. Nevertheless, Eric and company refused to amend the report unless I agreed to pay a re-evaluation and revision fee at $600/hr.
Erics report revealed the reality that doctors do not want to report bad results from lasering. Although Eric suggested that my dermatologist report my treatment results in the literature, that is precisely the problem: What doctor wants to reveal error and malpractice? Many patients are pleading online with the dermatology field and those with influence to hear their grievances, and I provided such patient stories for Erics review.
The dermatology office refused to disclose their malpractice policy information to me or my lawyer when I sought to file a case against them, nor would the Nevada Medical Board help me obtain the doctors malpractice insurance policy number and information. Consumers have a right to know complaints brought against a doctor, yet the Board discloses no such background information on the doctors. Both organizations obstructed me, and Nevada law only allows one year for a patient to file a malpractice case. The State of Nevada Medical Board of Examiners held my material on this case for ten months. They also did not respond to any of my questions about breaches in the Nevada Statutes & Regulations with regard to this medical assistant, which is the title/term that both the NV Statutes and dermatology office use in their written information for the public.
Even though Eric confirmed that facial damage had occurred, he stated after I questioned his report that I would need more proof that the laser was administered improperly in the wrong places by the tech. The techs note that she lasered the vermillion border is indeed indicative of improper lasering. I did not request lasering for my lips. I also did not request lasering for dilated capillaries or for treatment of many scars, as Eric suggested. After lasering, the lower lip area visibly swelled while the upper lip shrank and jowls formed as a result (showing obvious texture change on that overlasered area to the side of the mouth that I would be happy to point out), yet Eric stated in 2016, There was no treatment in the affected areas. Did Eric therefore change his mind in 2016 and disclaim the negative lasering consequences of 2015 that have lasted and that he originally attested to? Can he truly believe I was not lasered in these areas? Was he confusing me with another patient?
The dermatology office wrote me that the tech was a Board Certified Aesthetician practicing medical aesthetics, but Eric wrote that the tech was a questionably licensed aesthetician. This tech has no Board certification in Nevada and, as far as I know, was not currently board certified anywhere else at the time of lasering. (The dermatology office would not give me the name of the other so-called tech who lasered me, which prevented me again from ascertaining certification.) Furthermore, in Nevada, aestheticians by law are not allowed to laser. I have a statement from the Minnesota Board of Cosmetology, which is the state where the first tech previously worked, that warns of the medical aesthetician title as a very misleading title to the consumer.
In the end, Eric chose not to determine the exact cause of my confirmed facial damage from lasering in spite of all the evidence I provided. It is essential that in the future more will be revealed about the cover-ups and protections that can occur for doctors, laser operators, and office staff who negligently and/or intentionally commit harm upon unsuspecting consumers. Will the field commit to rethinking its ethics and stopping fraudulent damage? Its time!
The Washington, DC, Better Business Bureau (BBB) allows a consumer only half an hour to respond online to the AME businesss response to my complaint and provides no warning to the consumer beforehand of this time limit. Below is a revised version of the response I sent to the BBB, a second letter of mine which BBB neither publicly posted nor acknowledged (in the negative review category). BBB also subsequently removed most of the public content of another consumers negative review of the AME business yet still publicly posted AMEs response to that consumer. BBB stated complaint details [were] unavailable with that consumers complaint as well as with mine. I would be curious to know how BBB justifies its A+ business rating for the AME business.
In my response to AMEs letter to BBB about my complaint, Mr. Eric Jacobss claim that American Medical Experts (AME) did its job 100% is far from the truth.
1) I did not call Eric Jacobs the medical expert in my case in spite of what Mr. Jacobs claims. Who was doing what at the AME business, however, was not clear. Ronny Hamad, the person who responded to me in September 2015 about AME services, was a company director who guided me with the contract details and submission process of my case.
2) This past spring (May 27, 2017), I resumed contact again with Mr. Hamad regarding my old concerns and requests from 2015 and 2016 following my questioning of the medical experts report. I asked that my comments be forwarded to the medical expert and asked that Mr. Hamad let me know one way or another if he would forward my points to him, especially as its feedback that may help with future customers. By June 6, 2017, I inquired again, not having received any response. Mr. Hamad wrote me that Eric is out of the office. It was not until June 20, 2017 (twenty-four days later), that Mr. Hamad emailed me that Eric is still out of the office. I assumed Eric was the first name of the medical expert since Mr. Hamad had not informed me that he would not be notifying the medical expert about my questions. It wasnt until nearly a month later as mentioned, that Mr. Hamad emailed me that hell answer my inquiry for Eric because he know[s] what Eric is going to say--that there would be a cost for looking into the report matter that Im raising once again. Mr. Hammad is referring to Mr. Eric Jacobs. Mr. Eric Jacobs, in fact, was also called an AME company Director. If Mr. Hamad (one director) knew how Eric (another director) was going to respond to my 2017 inquiry, then why did Mr. Hamad not inform me earlier?
3) I provided the doctor and technician names and their business address to AME in all the materials I sent them (except for one techs name that the dermatology office would not disclose to me). Over two weeks later, Mr. Hamad emailed me that the medical expert still needed to know the address of the dermatology office and the names of the people involved in the case. Had the medical expert read any of my documents?
4) Mr. Jacobs stated I paid only step one of AMEs payment process. I did not default on any payment. I paid AMEs up-front fee of $1,200 to receive a professional report. The report, an emailed draft, was an insubstantial, poorly written three-paragraph assessment of my case. The second step Mr. Jacobs referred to was an additional $1,200 charge to obtain merely the medical experts actual name, signature, and CV.
5) Why would a company not provide a customer with the credentials and license information of its experts? I chose not to pursue AMEs highly questionable second step payment process.
6) When I began the process of getting an expert witness, I inquired about the steps I needed to take with AME. I did not receive a disclaimer that AME sent to BBB stating that potential customers must agree to. The emails from Mr. Hamad did not include information about an official agreement I would have had to make with the company beforehand.
7) The company did not inform me that they would withhold the medical experts name on their emailed report but stated the report would be unsigned. I was told after I got the report that I must pay the company an additional fee ($1,200) for the same report with the medical experts name and signature on it.
8) Following my complaint, AME emailed BBB the medical experts CV that had nine question marks in the medical experts education/awards section. Does that indicate that the AME cannot verify their medical experts credentials?
9) Mr. Jacobs stated that I believed in a guarantee [that] an expert will support the merit on any case. He stated that would be unethical for AME and for a client like Ms. Goldsmith [to] require such opinion is not honest. I made no such request. A patient undeniably expects a medical expert to do a thorough and impartial assessment of her case, but obviously there are no guarantees of medical experts favorable opinions. I do believe AME needs to address their medical experts decisions to dismiss key evidence. How is that justified? I had high expectations of AME and was disappointed when the medical expert did not address key factors in my case. Mr. Jacobss statement that Im not being honest is ridiculous.
10) I paid AME $1200 for a professional report and received from them a report that lacked in-depth attention to my concerns. AME did not explain the additional work they claimed to have done for me. The expert had not adequately addressed my concerns and questions, and I followed up in 2015, 2016, and 2017 with the same issues.
11) AME did not address the points in my first letter to the BBB. As a consumer, I repeatedly asked and paid for the medical expert to comment on the lip change caused by excessive lasering of that unrequested, sensitive area. An expert would have known this area should not have been lasered and that subsequent lip change did result. The medical expert avoided the question during and after his writing the report despite my repeated requests that he comment on this problem.
The medical expert stated that scarring from lasering is worth pursuing legally but that wrinkling and facial structural change from excessive lasering done in unneeded facial areas is not worth pursuing legally. That makes no sense to me.
12) Why should I pay extra for a medical expert to explain his reports crucial but incomprehensible wording? Or why should I pay for a medical expert to use the office notes at the exclusion of my own records and documentation? I was the only provider of physical evidence in the form of dated photographs. The dermatological office had contracted to take photographs but had failed to do so before, during, or after treatment.
The medical expert even reported wrongful facts that he took directly from the dermatology office notes while also wrongly interpreting some of those office notes in his report. It also would have been helpful and less biased if the medical expert had used more professional language, such as doctor/patient claims.
13) As for the medical expert fixing what he calls typos in his report--which prevent full comprehension of the sentences in his Discussions and Conclusion paragraph--he totally misses the mark on one account. In his original report, he stated that perioral [around the mouth] wrinkling...is certainly far more pronounced in the later, post-treatment photos. In his subsequent letter to the BBB, after revising the next two sentences of his original medical expert report, he wrote, Forehead wrinkling appears to be more pronounced but as he writes in both documents, The most pronounced change is seen in the lower face. He therefore confirmed laser damage to the lower face. But forehead wrinkling? I was not lasered there. The tech lasered once to the side of my left brow for some reason, which did create a bruise and some wrinkling there, so Im curious to know from what photos the expert determined a noticeable forehead change. If he further supports my case by stating theres more forehead wrinkling, then I am grateful.
14) The medical expert contradicted himself. He noted laser damage to my forehead, as mentioned above, which is another example of harm done by lasering in the wrong area. His report was completed in 2015, but he wrote in 2016 that I had originally needed more documented proof of treatments administered in the wrong spot. No treatment was needed on the forehead; therefore, according to the medical experts reasoning, lasering did happen in the wrong place and that lasering did cause damage as a result of technician error.
15) I sought help for one acne spot, which the doctor attested to in the case note; however, the medical expert didnt address the lasers high setting described in the techs note, nor did the medical expert mention the excessive amount of lasering--the claimed number of laser hits--to the face as another probable cause for facial damage.
16) If the medical expert were to treat a concerned patient such as myself, he would logically explain the usual preparation and procedure to the patient. Neither he nor the technician discussed treatment standards for my one-spot problem.
17) This was not a competent or licensed tech although the office falsely claimed she was a board certified aesthetician. Even if she had been board certified in Nevada, which she was not, the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology law states that aestheticians are not permitted to laser.
18) I recommend the article Elephant in the room of dermatology, by Dr. Brett Coldiron, past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He warned about how the so-called wrong people can be performing dermatological services (at supposedly physician rates). Dr. Coldiron predicted future dire outcomes for such practices. He seemingly resigned from his post at AAD for his strong ethical beliefs that unfortunately didnt get the needed backing in the resistant dermatological field.
19) Eric Jacobs of AME stated to BBB that merit is lacking in my malpractice case. Yet, in contradiction, Mr. Jacobs sent me an email in 2015 in which the medical expert stated that my facial damage is real from the lasering that was performed. Has AME changed its position?
20) I am not surprised that AME continues to ignore my concerns. The relevant topics should have been covered in the medical experts report in more detail and my, the patients, written observations should have been given serious consideration and acknowledgement.
21) Numerous patient grievances are on the web, some of which I sent to the medical expert including other articles about the very troubling practice of cover-ups by dermatologists and those whom theyve hired to do their work for them. The medical expert neither noted nor responded to this data and in fact claimed that I sent him only one article from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). Was he simply careless or did he perhaps choose not to note the data reported in journals, newsletters, and other health sources that I provided about the risks of lasering, especially when the laser machine and its instrument are operated by people who can lack training, education, supervision, and good intentions.
22) Like Dr. Coldiron, I also hope that dermatologists will honor their commitment to fully and ethically uphold patient care. As I said, its time for change--accountability, monitoring, honest reporting, more medical research, and repair of medical damage.
23) Final note: If BBBs purpose is to protect the consumer and to uphold high standards in business practices, the consumer needs more than thirty minutes to present the facts of flawed business practices.