Developed in part with a grant from
the National Science Foundation

Member since June 2017

  • Reviews 8
  • First to Review 5
  • Thank Yous 0
  • Fans 0
  • Profile Views 370

Review Distribution

5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
8

8 Reviews by lynne

Sort by: Most recent

Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery

Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery

4/23/19
• Updated review
Some previous business names used for this company: 1) Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology 2) Advance Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology 3) Tahoe Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology 4) Advanced Dermatology

The original complaint involved Dr. Martin Salm's office where I saw Dr. Alan J. Anthony who had two other unsupervised techs excessively and
unprofessionally laser my face for one acne spot. Medical "expert"
determined that facial damage was done. The Nevada dermatology office
falsely claimed in writing that the main laser tech, Samantha Reith, was
a Nevada Board Certified Aesthetician specializing in medical
aesthetics. The other tech's name they would not provide.
“Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology business causes permanent facial damage from laser”
5/28/18
• Previous review
I would strongly not recommend Dr. Alan Anthony, Samantha Reith, or anyone else affiliated with this Kingsbury Grade office in Stateline, NV. I have nothing but regret for going there, for their permanently damaging my face in different ways, which a medical expert confirmed, and which I took photos of to prove. The doctor/office would not provide me with their malpractice insurance information or licensing/credentialing information of their technicians (and a name for one of the technicians), so I was therefore prevented from pursuing a legal case and/or filing a complaint. The Nevada Medical Board also would not provide the office's insurance information for me (the consumer) or take any public corrective action with this group who broke "treatment" protocol in various ways, such as by not abiding by their own consent form (the patient-doctor contract) of taking facial photos before and after laser; by not fully informing and protecting the patient (such as with the right eyewear); and by improperly advising and performing a procedure in an excessive--at least triple the intensity level than what's medically recommended--and unprofessional/untrained way that did not even target the one acne spot problem I came in for.

In fact, the one acne spot never got "treated" even though I asked if it could still be done after it was missed the first time around. But again, the spot was not targeted directly the second time around either, as photos of the bruising locations also confirmed.) I am so sorry I went to this office for help/advice because it quickly turned in to a massive, unnecessary lasering of such places as my lips, left nasolabial fold area, and across my chin area (which now has an indentation going across it), where no lasering should have happened.

This so-called treatment created such changes as wrinkles, fat loss in the cheeks, and saggy skin in the jowl area. The fact that my lip area changed shape too (thinner top lip--more so on right side and including the cupid's bow area--w/ swelling below central bottom lip) and that my lips don't close evenly or in the same places anymore and that I still have different sensations in them are laser consequences that I will always be reminded of. The office offered me a $50 refund and Dr. Anthony referred me to another cosmetic doctor for a facelift as a remedy.

I wish I had more room to respond to Dr. Anthony's healthgrades response. If patient satisfaction is so important to him, why did he remove himself both during and after bad laser treatment? I had to insist on seeing him after laser job and not a tech that staff said I had to see. And yes, I already stated that his office offered me a $50 refund, but that's hardly adequate for damages done. He implied I could have filed a malpractice claim, yet he withheld his malpractice insurance policy information and number and the NV Board would also not provide it (as reflective of the Board's longstanding poor consumer rating), so where would I have filed it? If there were no treatment problems, nothing to be concerned about, what did he have to hide? And why keep me from looking at my record?

Another issue here is fraud as he now says the laser techs aren't licensed. His office claimed, however, and wrote me tech was "Board Certified Aesthetician" who did "medical aesthetics." The very misleading inaccuracy of that title in which no available license number exists is a problem. And yes, techs are licensed with the NV Cosmetology Board, but these aestheticians, by law, are prohibited from lasering. He also claims that his tech followed protocol, yet he wasn't present so how does he know? Her lasering was excessive and supposedly at least triple the laser company's recommended intensity level and not even directed at the target area, as she herself even documented (although probably even at a higher intensity number based on what another tech said).

Please, Dr. Anthony, be accountable for a service probably billed at a medical doctor's rate while performed by an unqualified, negligent person with seemingly bad intentions. It's bad enough the consequence of physical and psychological damage to a patient, but then to dismiss those realities? Where are your ethics? I hope someday you show genuine concern for all your patients and the field of dermatology in which you have the chance to do some real good and effect positive change, especially in the area of laser research and in the state of Nevada where you're given license to harm.

[Complaints about the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the Medical Examiners Board in Nevada and other organizations and/or people might also be found on this website in connection to this case.]
____________________________________________

Comment from J F. of Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology
Business Customer Service
9/5/2017 The treatment was performed with completely appropriate and conservative settings and the treatment had good results. There have been no reports in medical literature causing any of the problems you complain of. We did not treat many of the areas you referenced. The treatment worked perfectly without any complications. The laser does not cause wrinkles, however it does help remove them. We charged you $50 for the little area treated and refunded your money. We are sorry you are so unhappy.

My response: T.F claims the lasering was performed with "conservative settings." I guess she didn't read the the technician notes that treatment was performed at a "higher setting" and I guess she didn't read the number of times my face was excessively lasered. Maybe it was even lasered more than the 42 times for what was supposed to be only one facial spot. Doctors are not willing to publish bad treatment results in the medical literature, especially when performed by an unqualified, unlicensed person at their office. T.F. also claims that the "treatment worked perfectly" and that there were good results. I guess she didn't look at the dated photos of the facial transformation and the fact that the one acne spot was never even treated even though I waited and asked Samantha to re-do the spot. T.F. states the laser does not cause wrinkles. So why does a medical expert in the case write that "pronounced change is seen in the lower face" after laser treatment with "perioral wrinkling [around the mouth] far more pronounced" along with "forehead wrinkling" and jowl prominence and cheek volume loss. Yes, lasers can damage skin, and that fact is in the literature. T.F. also claims I received a $50 refund. I never received a $50 refund. Dr. Anthony mentions on the Healthgrades website that he offered the $50 refund. He's right: The office offered me this money, but I would not accept a mere $50 for damages done.
American Medical Experts

American Medical Experts

4/12/19
• Updated review
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
155A.33.

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
is suspect.

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

http://www.aad.org/dw/monthly/2014/september/safety-first#allpages
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)

http://www.aad.org/media-resources/stats-and-facts/cosmetic-treatments/cosmetic-surgery
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:

various
websites/ research/ reports of laser harm/damage:



http://iplandlasersupport.blogspot.com/



http://iplandlasersupport.blogspot.com/2009/02/fat-lossatrophy-from-cosmetic-devices.html



http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/topic773.html



https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/laserhazards/index.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_VQNm_3NHo





http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosacea_Forum/showthread.php?18795-Anybody-have-fat-loss-from-V-Beam



http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosacea_Forum/showthread.php?18795-Anybody-have-fat-loss-from-V-Beam



http://thescienceofacne.com/pdl/



http://www.realself.com/question/damage-VBeam
(talks about facial depressions?)



http://iplandlasersupport.blogspot.com/2009/02/fat-lossatrophy-from-cosmetic-devices.html



http://www.noviskin.co.za/treatments/vein-therapy/vein-therapy-leg/vein-therapy-leg-VBeam



http://www.realself.com/question/v-beam-facial-fat-loss



http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/topic3395.html



http://messageboards.makemeheal.com/non-surgical-cosmetic/ipl-and-fat-loss-poll-questions-t68784.html



http://www.skinacea.com/facials/lasers/side-effects.html#.VSl-e2aPU7A





http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/topic1131.html



http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosacea_Forum/showthread.php?19677-V-beam-The-quot-what-have-I-done-now-quot-feeling/page3



http://messageboards.makemeheal.com/non-surgical-cosmetic/warning-for-beam-laser-proceed-with-caution-t51232.html



http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosacea_Forum/showthread.php?18795-Anybody-have-fat-loss-from-V-Beam



http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/viewforum.php



http://www.electrooptics.com/features/f
... ture_id=52



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554344

http://www.scripps.edu/researchservices
... nual07.php

Re:
VBeam causing nerve damage

http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/topic773.html?sid=2e2c8774f67972312d40ede106e25459#p4267

http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com/topic3872.html

IPL/Laser
Operators discussing problems w/ IPL tx



Example
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:

"Hi all,
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
... a03AM.dpuf

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
BBL only?
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

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
me.

- See more at: http://medicalspamd.com/cosmetic-ipl-la
... a03AM.dpuf

redbysciton



Posts: 114

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:14 am

Top

"Temperature
can be considered as a carcinogenic factor"

Posted by cveroleyva
» Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:07 pm

This study
talks about increasing levels of heat to the skin.

http://www.icnirp.de/documents/infrared.pdf

cveroleyva



Posts: 450

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;
5(6): 4553:
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.



The
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
healing process.





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
steroids.





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.
from skinacea.com



i
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.



i
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
flattened.

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.

This
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



People
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
public.
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.
One doctor
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!
“Dr. Aton Mordechai Holzer, name of AME's dermatologist”
10/22/18
• Previous review
name of the medical doctor assigned to this case, whose name he and American Medical Experts (AME) refused to disclose, is Dr. Aton Mordechai Holzer
“AME did not provide ethical or adequate service”
9/26/17
• 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.
Logansport Memorial Hospital

Logansport Memorial Hospital

5/28/18
• Updated review
My response to T.F's reply to me on 9/5/17: T.F claims the lasering was performed with "conservative settings." I guess she didn't read the the technician notes that treatment was performed at a "higher setting" and I guess she didn't read the number of times my face was excessively lasered. Maybe it was even lasered more than the 42 times for what was supposed to be only one facial spot. Doctors are not willing to publish bad treatment results in the medical literature, especially when performed by unqualified, unlicensed people (two techs in my case) at their office. T.F. also claims that the "treatment worked perfectly" and that there were "good results." I guess she didn't look at my dated photos of the facial transformation and the fact that the one acne spot was never even treated even though I waited and asked Samantha to re-do the spot. T.F. states the laser "does not cause wrinkles." So why does a medical expert in the case write that "pronounced change is seen in the lower face" after laser treatment with "perioral wrinkling [around the mouth]...far more pronounced" along with "forehead wrinkling" and jowl prominence and cheek volume loss. Yes, lasers can damage skin, and that fact is in the literature. T.F. also claims I received a $50 refund. I never received a $50 refund. Dr. Anthony mentions on the Healthgrades website that he "offered" the $50 refund. He's right: The office offered me this money, but I would not accept a mere $50 for damages done.

Comment from J F. of Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery
Business Customer Service
9/5/2017 The treatment was performed with completely appropriate and conservative settings and the treatment had good results. There have been no reports in medical literature causing any of the problems you complain of. We did not treat many of the areas you referenced. The treatment worked perfectly without any complications. The laser does not cause wrinkles, however it does help remove them. We charged you $50 for the little area treated and refunded your money. We are sorry you are so unhappy.
“Dr. Alan Anthony, Samantha Reith, and other tech with undisclosed name cause permanent facial damage”
7/13/17
• Previous review
I think Dr. Anthony has since moved to Indiana, but I would strongly not recommend Dr. Alan Anthony, Samantha Reith, or anyone else affiliated with the Kingsbury Grade office in Stateline, NV. I have nothing but regret for going there, for their permanently damaging my face in different ways, which a medical expert confirmed, and which I took photos of to prove. The doctor/office would not provide me with their malpractice insurance information or licensing/credentialing information of their technicians (and a name for one of the technicians), so I was therefore prevented from pursuing a legal case and/or filing a complaint. The Nevada Medical Board also would not provide the office's insurance information for me (the consumer) or take any public corrective action with this group who broke "treatment" protocol in various ways, such as by not abiding by their own consent form (the patient-doctor contract) of taking facial photos before and after laser; by not fully informing and protecting the patient (such as with the right eyewear); and by improperly advising and performing a procedure in an excessive--at least triple the intensity level than what's medically recommended--and unprofessional/untrained way that did not even target the one acne spot problem I came in for.

In fact, the one acne spot never got "treated" even though I asked if it could still be done after it was missed the first time around. But again, the spot was not targeted directly the second time around either, as photos of the bruising locations also confirmed.) I am so sorry I went to this office for help/advice because it quickly turned in to a massive, unnecessary lasering of such places as my lips, left nasolabial fold area, and across my chin area (which now has an indentation going across it), where no lasering should have happened. This so-called treatment created such changes as wrinkles, fat loss in the cheeks, and saggy skin in the jowl area. The fact that my lip area changed shape too (thinner top lip--more so on right side and including the cupid's bow area--w/ swelling below central bottom lip) and that my lips don't close evenly or in the same places anymore and that I still have different sensations in them are laser consequences that I will always be reminded of. The office offered me a $50 refund and Dr. Anthony referred me to another cosmetic doctor for a facelift as a remedy.

I wish I had more room to respond to Dr. Anthony's healthgrades response. If patient satisfaction is so important to him, why did he remove himself both during and after bad laser treatment? I had to insist on seeing him after laser job and not a tech that staff said I had to see. And yes, I already stated that his office offered me a $50 refund, but that's hardly adequate for damages done. He implied I could have filed a malpractice claim, yet he withheld his malpractice insurance policy information and number and the NV Board would also not provide it (as reflective of the Board's longstanding poor consumer rating), so where would I have filed it? If there were no treatment problems, nothing to be concerned about, what did he have to hide? And why keep me from looking at my record?

Another issue here is fraud as he now says the laser techs aren't licensed. His office claimed, however, and wrote me tech (Samantha Reith) was "Board Certified Aesthetician" who did "medical aesthetics." The very misleading inaccuracy of that title in which no available license number exists is a problem. And yes, techs are licensed with the NV Cosmetology Board, but these aestheticians, by law, are prohibited from lasering. He also claims that his tech followed protocol, yet he wasn't present so how does he know? Her lasering was excessive and supposedly at least triple the laser company's recommended intensity level and not even directed at the target area, as she herself even documented (although probably even at a higher intensity number based on what another tech said).

Please, Dr. Anthony, be accountable for a service probably billed at a medical doctor's rate while performed by an unqualified, negligent person with seemingly bad intentions. It's bad enough the consequence of physical and psychological damage to a patient, but then to dismiss those realities? Where are your ethics? I hope someday you show genuine concern for all your patients and the field of dermatology in which you have the chance to do some real good and effect positive change, especially in the area of laser research and in the state of Nevada where you're given license to harm.

[Other reviews on this sitejabber website about people and organizations related to the case may be posted, such as for the Board of Medical Examiners in Nevada and the American College of Dermatology.]
Rover.com

Rover.com

4/24/18
• Updated review
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2017 9:29 am

Hi. Wow.

Does this mean that if a customer picks her/his dog up early, that I (as sitter) am going to have to report that every time? What about when the dog's people arrive early or come late? That extra work time for a sitter never gets noted/recorded or reimbursed.

These particular customers were last-minute customers and were fully informed before booking--were okay with it-- that ^^^^ would be there to greet them. I was trying to help the customers out in a pinch and accommodate their wish to go skiing early. I did offer to come meet them at a different location and have the dog stay in my car briefly. As happens with a lot of people coming through ~~~~, they just want to get their dog situated fast. Just reread Rover's sitter-customer emails of our dialogue (as the last Rover support person did) as this was all emphasized. There were no surprises on my part.

Let me also inform you/Rover that I never communicated to the customers during the dog's stay that I would not be able to provide overnight services for them, as Rover reports and accepts as fact. Again, check the sitter/customer emails. I also saved all my texts with these customers and would be happy to forward those to you to show you that the customers had other unknown people pick up their dog early in order to avoid an incoming winter storm. I also never did tell these customers that their booking would end early, so please don't state that as fact.

These people had questionable emails to me right from the start, as was already brought to Rover's attention, which the customers attributed to their Rover account being hacked.
You/Rover really need to be careful how you address these matters and take action.
What I'm understanding from your email is that these customers called up to lie about me, maybe get a refund? Is this what you're saying?

Or, if you do have some policy where sitters are to report every time someone picks a dog up early, then I can tell you right now that I will no longer use Rover.

Maybe you/Rover should consider "pausing" customers who abuse the system just like you "pause" sitters. If these customers had told me their dog was not house-trained and chewed household items, I would not have taken this dog. He damaged objects and urinated on carpets. It was also not a safe situation for all parties--and I let them know this--that they did not inform me that their dog was not trained for leash walking--could not be walked on a leash. That's an extreme risk.

Let me just say that I care a lot about what I do, taking good care of the dogs entrusted to me, and trying to help people out, while getting paid very little. So I must say that your email is a real turn-off to me.

Sincerely,

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Sent: Mon, Mar 6, 2017 10:25 am

Hello again, Customer Support.

Rover never informed me that a refund would be given to the client. Rover did not review my case before siding with the customer. Please review my online review of these clients, and please review the Rover emails.

These customers reportedly had their day of skiing, had dinner, but had changed their departure time to get an early start out of ~~~~ to avoid a snowstorm. They never communicated a need of another sitter. My Rover fee is still $30 (from which I receive $25) for the day whether the overnight for the dog is included or not. Please honor and review my rate. In other words, these people would still have had to pay$30 for the day regardless if the dog slept here that night or not. (I encourage Rover to add more rate categories to help avoid such sitter/customer/Rover problems, which have the potential to turn into thorny issues.)

The customers' dog was in my care for eleven hours, which I can prove with the customers' last text. I gave this dog a lot of love, walks, food, and play time. He was never alone the whole time he was here nor was he confined to a yard, kennel, or crate.

It's interesting that the customers claimed their Rover account was being hacked and wrote me they would not be using the Rover emails anymore as a means of our communicating. Fortunately, I saved our texts and can forward them if you need to see them even though I believe that forwarding texts does not give the actual time of when a text was originally sent. It would therefore probably be best for me to take photos of my phone screen with the texts, upload them to my laptop, and then email them to Rover if Rover needs the times on the texts along with the customer's phone number showing at the top of the phone screen with the messages sent and received.

Please inform these customers that I would not consider future contact with them, either. After their misrepresentation of me, I sent them my reply via Rover as I have the right to do.

I challenge Rover's hasty decision that involved no investigation or discussion with me before a refund was quickly given to the customer. I worked hard for a mere $25, and I do expect to receive the $25 payment for my services--a very small amount--for eleven hours of care that this dog had--not even including the texting, phone conversations, and emails before and after with these customers. This comes out to a dollar-something of earnings an hour for me.

This dog suffered no harm while under my care. He did, however, damage my property, which these customers do not get charged for as Rover does not consider that. They led on that he was housebroken and chewed only on his toys.

Please also note that you state Rover requires a meet/greet for sitters and dogs. Realistically, that doesn't always happen based on emergencies or other situations such as people wanting a quick drop off. Although I offered to meet and greet these customers outside my home--to pick up their dog--they chose to deliver the dog to my home, knowing that I would not be present and that ^^^^ would receive him. So what are you saying?

______________________________________________________________________________

*****, I am very sorry that you continue to speak untruthfully to me, Rover, and now the public. Fortunately, I have our texts and emails as proof. I tried working with you for the care of your fun, spunky dog that you wanted to drop off without much notice. I was up front about everything. You were not. In response to your claims above:
1) Before we met and booked the stay, I asked for pertinent information from you about *** in order to take precautions for you, ***, myself, and others. I rely on people being honest with me. You did not indicate or voice any possible concern that *** is not leash or house trained (yes, he urinated on the carpets) and chewed household items (wood, plastic, cardboard). Through Rover, you wrote to me that *** is "well trained" and "doesn't bark or chew." You also did not inform me by phone or in writing--but told ^^^^--that you wanted *** to have a salve on one of his paw pads before and after walks. This too is information I as a sitter need to know beforehand in order to address the issue of the flooring or possible proper bandaging for ***. And when you say you had to ["relay] all the information" to ^^^^ because I wasn't around, what exactly was "all" your information that you relayed to ^^^^? All ^^^^ knew about was the salve.
2) I gave you the option of my coming out to meet you for picking up *** myself or having you come to my residence and having ^^^^ greet you at the door. You chose the latter because you were wanting to go skiing for the day but also not wanting to arrive at the house before 9:30 AM. As our emails show, I could have met you when you dropped off *** at the house if you had agreed to come earlier. I was doing you a favor by letting you come at a later time of your choosing.
3) You state in your review of me that *** "can obviously not be walked off leash this young as they are notorious for running off," then were you not concerned about my not having a fenced yard due to his inability to walk in a controlled manner with a leash on? And yet you were properly informed via email and on my rover profile about there not being a fenced yard. Also, the fact that your'e stating--stating only after the visit--that it's a requirement for *** to be leashed, then why did you not inform me of that important factor before the visit? I learned on my own that I could not hold *** back, and I certainly didn't want to unintentionally choke him as the leash tightened with his bolting. By the way, *** at ten months old is not too young to start leash training. There are huskies his age and younger who are leash trained. One dog trainer online at iheartdogs.com actually encourages that huskies start leash training at eight weeks old. In any case, you then write in your review "the fact that [dogsitter] thought it was okay to let [***] off the leash in a new neighborhood worried us." Like I said, *** could not be held back with his fiery spirit. And how were you not aware that you/he were coming to a new neighborhood? Were you expecting me to walk him somewhere else?
4) You state you did not feel that *** was safe with me. Let's not skip over the fact that I was the one who communicated to you after I had *** under my care that I had concerns about him due to his not being able to be walked on a leash and his picking up objects to bite/chew/swallow. You state in your review he was apparently "not given his two chew toys" during the stay. I did not take his chew toys away, believe me. I even sent you a picture of him with a frog "toy" of ours that he chewed part of the legs off. Let me assure you your two toys were available for his chewing the entire time. In fact, we played tug with his rope toy over and over.
5) Also, you were the ones indicating to me that you wanted to pick up *** early so you could get a head start in driving home for your long trip in order to avoid a winter storm coming in. I wrote to you prior to that that *** was "doing fine" and was "happy." (I sent you photos.) He also by that point had been running around like crazy outside and, luckily, was keeping me within sight and listening to me if I called him (unlike what he was doing before). You also indicated that you were "not sure if *** would settle down to sleep" that night, which you didn't explain after I texted you a question about this.
6) Also, I have no idea who picked up *** since this couple who picked him up did not match your Rover profile photo. The male just asked how *** was during the stay while the female put *** in the car. I was communicating with you throughout ***'s stay about how he was doing and what he was doing.
7) You state that the "whole experience was bizarre." What I myself found bizarre were strange emails sent to me from your account that you said you didn't send. Your concern was that hacking of your account was going on. Rover got involved with this issue but did not find hacking. Ive never had that kind of website experience with any customer before.

Finally, let me just say that I love dogs and I love helping people out in this way. All my other reviews on Rover are 5-star. I dont get paid much for the time and love I put into caring for animals. Thank you, though, for reminding me about needing to be much more careful about what people I choose to work with and welcome into a private home. Kennels where people might just drop a dog off and let the dog sit in a cage or cement dog-run all day with other stressed-out dogs can charge more than what I receive for my fee. It is unfortunate that dog sitters such as myself who enjoy dogs and want to accommodate their people need to be much more on guard as well as charge a higher price for the time commitment involved and the special attention given to each dog and the people involved.

We all take risks.

Best wishes to you and ***.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sent: Fri, Mar 10, 2017 10:37 am

Hello again.This has been a troublesome case. House property was damaged by a dog not housetrained, who required extra care and whose people were not up front about his behaviors/needs. The fact that the customers "*****" supplied an erroneous phone number to Rover is worrisome. Also, the Rover photo did not match the couple who picked up the dog that night.
I believe I was not duly compensated for my service and time. Rover does not split a day and a night fee, but isn't that what you were doing in this situation? Please consider adding these day versus night categories to your sitter rates.
Although this case is closed, it's been a learning experience.
“unethical tampering of communications/information”
4/20/18
• Previous review
As a highly rated dog sitter/walker I did not always find rover customer service to be fair, responsible, practical, far-seeing, ethical, forthcoming/transparent, or good at listening. Their website communications could be misleading. For example, clients' last names, addresses, and actual phone numbers were not provided to the sitter on the website although different rover-generated phone numbers (that I had wrongly assumed were clients') were provided. Clients' identities may not therefore have been bona fide or trackable, which became most troubling for me in one particular case.

There were other issues. Full, continuous history of written dialogue between the customer and sitter was also not always displayed to the sitter on rover's client profile which made it difficult for the sitter to track conversations. (Individual emails would have to be opened instead to search for parts of conversations). Also, a rate category for a day and night package is not available on rover, which customers complained about. I pushed for rover to add that to their website so that clients wouldn't be confused. Rover also changed my photos and their placement on my profile without notifying or asking my permission. After this, they changed information on my profile as well without asking me so that it was false information, such as indicating that I was a smoker when I am not. They claimed they did not make these changes.

Sitters will be blocked from using aspects of the website and blocked from receiving customer requests without rover informing them of the reasons. Sitters will have to figure out the cause. For example, I was having trouble using the website and wasn't getting client requests for some time. When I called rover to inquire about this, rover told me that I needed a longer personal profile description in order for rover to unblock me. This was a required, new policy for all sitters that rover had not notified me about.

As an exception to this rule of not notifying sitters, Rover recently sent new terms of conditions that I had to agree to in order to continue using their services. For a long time I had been thinking about discontinuing with rover and, as I didn't agree to these terms, I informed them I wished to discontinue with their services. Rover replied that only they could be the ones to deactivate my account. The deactivation process was problematic. For example, Rover did not wait before taking action or explaining things, and they even changed my email subject headings of our conversations.

Most alarming was that during a conversation with my last rover client via texting when I mentioned the process of leaving rover, ALL my phone texts (thousands)--not just rovers correspondence on my phone but personal, important records--instantly vanished!! It appeared that rover had gained control over my entire phone text records. A shocking discovery.

Rover claims they can delete only rover customer texts on my phone and no other texts. Yet at some point during my time with rover, they gained the capability of instantly texting me sent emails to and from customers (while emailing to my personal email and rover email accounts my same texts to and from customers) without asking for permission to somehow always sync my phone and laptop devices with triplicate messages, which would not have been my preference. These copies to and from my phone and laptop continued until the last message was sent/received between me and a rover client. I still do not know how rover synced my phone to my laptop and their computer system.

Recently, when I subsequently tried to contact a neighbor, who is a client, rover had already messaged her without my permission that I'm no longer offering services. I don't know how rover explained to her that I was no longer working for them because rover provided no copy. But rover also blocked me from that neighbor's phone and I had to use a different phone to contact her.
Better Business Bureau

Better Business Bureau

9/24/17
The Better Business Bureau (BBB in Washington, D.C.) allowed me (the consumer) only half an hour to respond online to a businesss response to my written complaint. BBB gave no warning beforehand of this time limit. BBB neither publicly posted nor acknowledged (in the negative review category) either of my submitted letters on the American Medical Experts (AME) company. BBB also subsequently removed most of the public content of another consumer's negative review of the AME business yet still publicly posted AME's 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 handling another related case, the Washington, D.C. office seemed a little rude. The BBB said they couldn't help with my complaint against American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) because no financial transaction took place. The BBB website states, however, that the BBB addresses service complaints that focus on misrepresentation or violation of business policy.

When I sent my same review to a different BBB regarding this same AAD organization in its other business location of Chicago, BBB stated it couldn't process my AAD complaint for completely different reasons than what the Washington D.C. BBB stated. The Chicago BBB gave such reasons as 1) I'm requesting some sort of "disclosure of practices." [I don't know what BBB even meant by that.] BBB also twice wrongly told me 2) that I was filing a complaint with them against a doctor's office, which they don't handle, so I wrote back each time stating that no, this complaint was against the AAD. The Chicago BBB also said 3) they couldn't act as my lawyer or cop. I did not expect them to. They said other nonsensical things, such as 4) how I'm writing to them with a personal complaint, which they stated they can't handle. But they also said that I was 5) writing this complaint on behalf of other people, so they couldn't deal with that, either. They said several other things that also didn't make sense or didnt apply.

In response to the Washington D.C. BBB's response to me on google: I did try repeatedly to contact AAD and got no response from the organization (as I already showed BBB), and I did already try filing the complaint with BBB but to no avail. The BBB provided examples of complaint cases they wouldn't handle, cases that were not similar to mine. I was asking the BBB to direct the AAD to act on its avowed principles to serve patients and honor social responsibility, rigorous inquiry, professionalism, and lifelong learning.

In response to the Chicago BBB message to me on google: I wasn't asking for BBB or AAD to determine if another dermatology office had been careless. I was asking BBB for help in getting the AAD to stand by its promises to consumers.
Berman Skin Institute

Berman Skin Institute

7/21/17
Widespread laser damage (such as premature aging and disfiguring of lips) occurred to my face when I sought treatment for an acne spot at Advanced Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology in Stateline, NV. They consequently referred me to a cosmetic surgeon. I asked Dr. Eric Smith, working at the Berman Institute in California a good distance away from me, if he could help with facial changes and was told that he would look at my before-and-after laser photos (which the Stateline office never took as promised). Dr. Smith refused to take a look at the photos when I met with him and seemed very defensive. He stated in my patient record that I weighed 133 pounds although I've never weighed that much in my entire life and no one in his office even weighed me. Still, he wrote that changing my weight "could alleviate the majority of [my] concerns" with the pronounced facial changes, which was not, and has not been the case, however. He said the laser is safe but could provide no specific research. I subsequently found information from medical and health resources pointing to the dangers and risks of laser. Medical malpractice cover-ups and protection of unqualified and unethical people along with protection of money-making procedures continue.

Related complaints with regard to other organizations/people may already be filed on this sitejabber.com website due to apparent widespread collusion in protecting doctors over consumers in this type of case. Other organizations/names also of no or minimal help in my case were the Medical Board of Examiners in Nevada; the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the Better Business Bureaus [Reno, Nevada; Chicago, IL; Washington, D.C]; the Federation of State Medical Boards; JAMA-Dermatology; American Medical Experts, LLC.; Candella Corporation; Nevada Board of Cosmetology; media news sources associated with the 2004 investigative story on the Medical Board of Examiners for the state of Nevada; the American Board of Dermatology; Nevada senators; NV assemblywomen and assemblymen; Dr. Alan Anthony and Samantha Reith at Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology in Stateline, NV, where the lasering occurred; Dr. Brett Coldiron, previous AAD President, who wrote the "Elephant in the Room of Dermatology" article about this very subject (who provided no response to me); and Dr. Jeffrey Dover of Brookline, MA, who also declined a response but who was quoted on the AAD website as saying "Where we see a problem [with lasering] is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment...If one of those is missing, there's a potential problem. If all four of those are missing, you're really asking for trouble" (www.aaa.org/monthly/2014/September/safety-first#all pages).

I hope this information helps other consumers in a similar position
Medboard.nv.gov

Medboard.nv.gov

7/13/17
I filed a bona fide medical complaint with the NV Medical Board in 2015. The Board had my material for ten months to tell me in the end that the case was closed. (NV allows only one year for a patient to file a malpractice claim, which my dermatologist/staff obstructed me from filing. Patients are therefore hindered in initiating a malpractice claim.)

Below is my partial 2016 letter that I subsequently emailed to the Board. Because the Board chose not to respond to my letter, I repeatedly tried posting it on the NV Medical Board "reviews" pop-up tab on Google. The Board continued to immediately delete the posting, however. (No other consumer "reviews" are available on this Google pop-up, interestingly.) So when I posted my letter on a couple different websites instead, the letter's accessibility also seemed to disappear from the Google search engine.

Here is my shortened 2016 letter that I wrote to the Board:

Dear Dr. Rachakonda, Mr. Heitt, and other Investigative Committee members of the Nevada Medical Board:

Is the Nevada Medical Board truly available to help the consumer or not?
You write that my case is closed but you provide no specific findings in your investigation.

NRS 630.11 states there must be "reasonable basis for the complaint." A medical expert in my case determined that the facial "damage is real" as shown in [my dated] photographs with "pronounced change"...

The Board apparently decided to overlook this fact and gave no reason why. Please explain why the Board chose to do nothing with this information...patients will be harmed and providers and overseers who are expected to uphold a standard of ethics will not be held accountable.

I sought treatment from a licensed medical practitioner for one acne spot and was treated [excessively in areas other than target spot] by two technicians with no licenses [although the dermatology office claimed in writing that tech was "Board Certified Aesthetician" practicing "medical aesthetics." The doctor's office brochure also stated "Vbeam laser treatments performed properly, by a trained physician, are safe and effective," which implies Vbeam laser treatments not performed by a trained medical doctor greatly increases patient risks, a topic that is in the medical/health literature that I submitted to the NV Medical Board. The doctor subsequently referred me to a cosmetic surgeon after the lasering job at his office.] I request your responses:

NRS 630.305 involving:
1) aiding practice by unlicensed person. I still have not been provided information from the Board or the dermatology office about either technician's certification/licensing information. (The Board finds that acceptable??)
2) delegating responsibility to unqualified person (unqualified for whatever reason--be it psychological, wrongful intent, drug-related, etc.)

NAC630.370 involving:
1) supervising physician is responsible for all medical activities of his or her physician assistant
[the dermatology office in its paperwork also called the technician "medical assistant"]

NAC 630.360 involving:
performance of authorized medical services; identification; misrepresentation
--physician's assistant authorized to perform must be
1) commensurate with education, training, experience and level of competence
2) shall wear at all times while on duty a placard, plate, or insigne which identifies him or her as a physician's assistant
3) no physician's assistant may represent himself or herself in any manner which would tend to mislead the general public or the patients

NRS 630.306 involving:
1) deceptive conduct (such as a consent form/contract which does not disclose all possible facial changes from lasering job, or the fact that consent form does not comply with its promise that "photographs will be taken...Photographs may be used for educational purposes," yet neither of these dermatology office claims/promises occurred.
2) practice beyond scope of license
3) certain operation of medical facility [which would include laser machines]
4) engaging in unsafe or unprofessional conduct
5) failure to supervise medical assistant adequately
6) intoxication (was the technician under the influence of a drug, I wonder?)

NRS 630.3062 involving:
1) failure to allow inspection and copying of medical records (dermatology office put up barriers to my requests)
2) failure to file and obstructing required report (dermatology office unethically would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice policy information and I was therefore unable to proceed in pursuing a legal case)

NRS 630.3065 involving:
1) failure to perform legal obligation (as stated above, dermatology office would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice insurance information; consequently, no legal action could be taken on my part)
2) faliure to comply with law, subpoena or order

NRS 630.3067 involving:
1) insurer or physician required to report certain information concerning malpractice (as already stated, dermatology office obstructed my efforts to file a complaint)

When patients suffer from sub-standard medical practices, their complaints may be covered up by those in power rather than be adequately addressed...Nevada is lax in its lasering regulations in comparison to other states. JAMA and the AAD appear to be scrutinizing the evolving "treatment" practice of lasering and its hazards and its unknown, unreported, and non-researched consequences. The ultimate goal is that all doctors honor their patients' trust and that they act ethically and responsibly in caring for their patients.

[If we cannot trust our Board to protect consumers, whom can we trust and what message does that send to doctors? This is my second bad encounter over the years with the Board's inaction. Understandably, the Board has a history of ranking poorly in the United States in comparison to other state medical boards for job performance towards the consumer. I advocate for change.]

[Related complaints on the American Academy of Dermatology and possibly other organizations/people are currently filed on this sitejabber website due to apparent widespread collusion in protecting doctors over consumers with this kind of case. Other organizations/names also of no or minimal help in this matter were the Better Business Bureaus (Reno, Nevada; Chicago, IL; Washington, D.C); the Federation of State Medical Boards; dermatologist Dr. Eric Smith in Placerville, CA; JAMA-Dermatology; American Medical Experts, LLC.; Candella Corporation; the American Board of Dermatology; Nevada senators; NV assemblywomen and assemblymen; Dr. Alan Anthony and his office's fraudulently titled "Board Certified Aesthetician," Samantha Reith, who does "medical aesthetics" (as claimed in writing, with no known NV Board license number) at Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology in Stateline, NV, where the lasering occurred; Dr. Brett Coldiron, previous AAD President, who wrote the "Elephant in the Room of Dermatology" article about this very subject (who provided no response); and Dr. Jeffrey Dover of Brookline, MA, who also declined a response but who was quoted on the AAD website as saying "Where we see a problem [[with lasering]] is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment...If one of those is missing, there's a potential problem. If all four of those are missing, you're really asking for trouble" (www.aaa.org/monthly/2014/September/safety-first#all pages); Nevada Board of Cosmetology; and media news sources associated with the 2004 investigative story on the Medical Board of Examiners for the state of Nevada.]

As I wrote the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), I would be happy to provide information and photos on my lasering case to help with medical research with which they claim to have an interest.

Postscript:
Dr. Alan Anthony responds on healthgrades.com that the techs aren't licensed, yet the information they provided me in writing was misleading. (The derm office would also not disclose even the name of another tech who lasered me.) Furthermore, NV aestheticians are prevented by law from lasering.
American Academy of Dermatology

American Academy of Dermatology

6/29/17
I contacted the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) about wanting to submit a review on lasering, a consumer perspective that had to do with my concern about the harm caused by facial lasering and how the problem is not being conscientiously addressed by dermatology offices, state medical boards, and now the AAD.

Neither Mr. Mark Ramsey (Member Resource Center Representative) nor Ms. Katie Domanowski (Associate Director of Publishing) responded to my laser letter, and I tried to contact them another FIVE times (including the General Support people via the AAD online submission form) from April 3 to May 12 indicating that I would still please like to know what the Academy does with this information, the review I provided, and if it plans to further study/monitor/help control the dangers and repair the harms of lasering.

On April 3 Ms. Domanowski apologized and wrote that she was out of the office and would get back to me by the end of the week. On April 28 when I emailed, she responded that she was out of the office that day. I replied to her/Mr. Ramsey/General Support people that if I received no further communication from them I would consider their position to be a no response.

The AAD credo on their website states they are to honor:

Patients first: Compassion, caring and listening are at the heart of delivering the highest-quality dermatologic care. We are working to ensure members' ability to facilitate access to dermatologic care and deliver the highest quality of care.
Professionalism: Adhering to an uncompromising code of clinical and ethical standards among ourselves and with the public. The cornerstones of these standards emphasize honesty, integrity, transparency and mutual respect.
Lifelong learning: Pursuing knowledge and continuous improvement, embodying a spirit of intellectual curiosity and interchange through self-assessment and ongoing evaluation.
Rigorous inquiry and creative work: Pursuing excellence through innovation, creativity, critical evaluation and open dialogue.
Collaboration: Working together with mutual respect, collegiality and transparency. Collective and coordinated efforts through partnerships and teamwork encourage engagement, inspire ideas, create essential dialogue, and foster synergistic results.
Social responsibility: A dedication to the greater good. Community leadership, volunteerism and stewardship are hallmarks of our ability to contribute to public health.
Diversity: Acknowledging, respecting and valuing differences. An inclusive approach to people, ideas and practice styles includes a willingness to listen to all points of view. The result is collectively better because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

As my letter to the Academy stated, I was deeply troubled by my experience at a dermatology office. The Nevada Medical Board chose to not respond to my claims of breaches of the NV Statutes. In addition, the technicians purported licensure and credentialing (even a tech surname) could not be disclosed to me in spite of my repeated attempts to obtain that information. Still, the office wrote/claimed the tech was a "Board Certified Aesthetician" practicing "medical aesthetics."

Neither would the Stateline, NV, dermatology office nor the NV Medical Board provide me with the doctor's malpractice insurance information. The NV Board simply informed me after ten months that the case was closed. (Patients in Nevada, incidentally, have one year to file a malpractice claim.) The NV Medical Board chose not to respond to my questions and request for explanations and took no public actions with the dermatology office even in spite of the dermatology's breach of the patient-doctor contract and the documented improper treatment approach.

Apparently, a medical expert's opinion that I had experienced "pronounced" facial "damage" (from my dated photos) was not significant to the AAD and the NV Medical Board, nor are the many patient reviews or articles I submitted that also warn of lasering complications.

My treatment was for one tiny acne spot, nothing else. That spot never got treated. But the lasering of other unnecessary areas on my face was so extensive that it resulted in widespread damage that I was subsequently referred by the doctor to a cosmetic surgeon. It is incumbent on you, the AAD, as well as doctors and state medical boards to help protect patients from unethical and unqualified people who use lasers carelessly and dangerously. If you don't honor your code of ethics, what purpose do you serve?
________________
[part of my review sent to AAD, also a shortened version]

As stated on the AAD website regarding the practice of lasering, "Where we see a problem [with lasering] is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment...If one of those is missing, there's a potential problem. If all four of those are missing, you're really asking for trouble" [Dr. Dover, www.aaa.org/dw/monthly/2014/September/safety-first#allpages]. JAMA Dermatology reports that "further studies are needed to examine this troubling trend in laser safety" [2014: 150 (4): 407-411].

Researcher Dr. Jalian with the University of California confirmed that these procedures do cause harm if not done correctly (HealthDay News, 10/16/13). Another doctor and Yale professor (Dr. Salomon in same article) goes on to say that "Treating a patient or a client with any type of light energy can cause permanent damage." Furthermore, he says, "a certificate indicating proof of training on the laser should be readily provided on demand when a patient wants to check the credentials of the user of the laser."

Supervision in the use of lasers along with research and the honest reporting of lasering results are critical factors in patient care. As stated in the Journal of Clinical Aesthetic Dermatology [2012, June: 5 (6): 45-53], as the "understanding of the biological efficacy of various wavelength distributions evolve...it will be incumbent on clinicians who use these devices to report their clinical experiences in order to sustain our continued understanding of the technology's long-term safety and efficacy profile. Patients are led to believe that lasering is safe and that not much qualifications are needed to use such machines. Legal and ethical obligations for doctors and their assistants--accountability--are crucial for the responsible caring of their patients.

The JAAD states on its website that dermatological lasering damage must be addressed and evaluated. I have documentation of my own case that I would be willing to provide the field for further study if needed as I know I am not alone in the lasering harm that I experienced and continue to experience.

I would implore the American Academy of Dermatology and state Boards to better prevent, assess, and correct the damage that lasering can cause to unsuspecting people. Please help protect and properly inform patients about the real dangers involved.

[Other related reviews on this case have been posted to this website.]

lynne Has Earned 17 Votes

Lynne G.'s review of Medboard.nv.gov earned a Very Helpful vote
Lynne G.'s review of American Academy of Dermatology earned 2 Very Helpful votes
Lynne G.'s review of Better Business Bureau earned 7 Very Helpful votes
Lynne G.'s review of Rover.com earned 5 Very Helpful votes

lynne hasn’t received any thanks yous.

lynne doesn’t have any fans yet.

lynne isn’t following anybody yet.

Similar Reviewers on Sitejabber

patricke73
11/9/19

I paid a sitter for drop in visits for my dog 2x a day for a week. This dude stayed at the...

kaylae24
11/8/19

I hate writing bad reviews and consider myself a level-headed person, but we had a sitter who...