Complaints

This profile includes complaints for House of Paws Veterinary Clinic's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

House of Paws Veterinary Clinic has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  House of Paws Veterinary Clinic

  435 N Burke St Visalia, CA 93292-6515

• 

  House of Paws Veterinary Clinic

  PO Box 7660 Visalia, CA 93290-7660

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/23/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I took my dog in for a neuter and was not told there were multiple options or routes we could go. I trusted the vets here. They mutilated my dog and after taking him to 4 different vets to fix the mistake they made, all 4 asked why in gods name was this done? Why was he neutered like this? I now have to make the choice if I should let my 1yr old puppy live a life of pain or put him down. All because House of Paws Vet mutilated his genitals when this should have been a simple and routine procedure.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/27/2023

  Hello: 

  
  

  The complaint was not made by the owner of *****, this BBB complaint was made by a third party named Abigail. ***** is owned by **** ********* who left his dog in the care of ****** and **** *********, his parents. I spoke to ****** ********* on Friday 3/24/23 to which she apologized for her daughter ******* and was going to ask her to retract this complaint. However, the below information is what I emailed **** also on Friday 3/24/23, after my conversation with his mother ******.

  
  

  
  

  Good morning ****: 

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  I wanted to email you to advise you of a conversation I had
  with a lady claiming to be your sister, ******* Estrada. I have no reason to
  disbelieve that she is not your sister as she was very familiar with ***** and
  his continued issues with reopening his suture site from being neutered on
  3/14/23. 

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  I had a lengthy conversation with her and listened to her
  accusations that the neuter was completed incorrectly, and wanted us to repair
  the damage ***** has done, free of charge. She insinuated that you were
  told the scrotal ablation was 100% required. However, I disagree, you and I had
  the scrotal ablation conversation and you stated Dr. Adams explained it all
  during the exam and that you wanted to go ahead with having completed at the
  time of *****'s neuter. Scrotal ablations are recommended and not required, as
  was also explained.

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  I understand your family's frustration with having to
  continue to take ***** for additional procedures, however, I disagree that it
  is due to an error with the procedure. As stated when you picked up *****, he
  was very excited and trying to lick at the site and a cone needed to be on him
  at all times, no matter the inconvenience. At time of pickup, *****'s
  surgery site was clean, closed, not irritated and Dr. Adams explained to
  you how he did. There were no concerns with the process or surgery at that
  time.  ******* stated ***** has had the cone on most of the time, which
  indicates there are times when the cone is not on him, hence the continued
  processes of having to repair continued damage. *****'s continued disruption of
  the healing process is the cause for additional damage is what is at issue
  here. This is going to cause a much lengthier healing process now.

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

   Additionally, I would like to apprise you of last
  Friday at approximately 1:30 pm, when your father, ****, showed up at the
  clinic while we were closed due to the clinic floors being resurfaced. One of
  the floor employees came to the back of the clinic to get me because a person
  had his dog out front and was upset. When I went to the front parking lot *****
  was not leashed, did not have his cone on and was being held down (contained)
  by one of the flooring employees. Upon seeing me, ***** bolted toward me in an
  excited manner and was free from restraint. **** held up ***** in a fashion to
  show me the scrotal site and I stated he should take him to the emergency vet
  or another clinic to have it repaired. I further explained that I could not do
  anything at that moment because we were closed and the doctor was not on site.
  My suggestion to take him elsewhere was absolutely appropriate. **** said he
  would and attempted to have ***** follow him to his truck parked in the dirt
  area. ***** disregarded ****'s and my verbal attempts to get him to follow to
  the truck and bolted south toward main street. By the time **** was at the
  railroad tracks, ***** was completely out of sight. All this is visible on our
  cameras as well, showing that ***** was unrestrained, does not have his cone
  on. It is not inconceivable to believe that ***** has had multiple
  opportunities to disrupt his healing by licking, chewing, and agitating the
  site, and the medication we sent home to help keep him calm, has not been
  utilized. I say all this because ******* was extremely accusatory that we had
  made a mistake. I disagree. 

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  Further, ***** was taken to the emergency on
  Friday 3/17/23, 3 days after his surgery, which they repaired where
  ***** was able to open the incision either by being over active, licking,
  or chewing the site. On Monday, 3/20/23, another 3 days, I had a text
  conversation with your mother, ******. She stated ***** had reopened the site
  again and took him back to the emergency clinic, but they refused to see him. I
  put ***** on the schedule for Tuesday morning so we could repair the site, but
  per your text your parents took to their vet. Care at The Courtyard repaired it
  on Monday, then again three days later your sister is calling and making accusations
  that we mutilated *****. I do not want to play a blame game, but it seems as
  though ***** needs to be under responsible and constant supervision and have
  his cone on at all times as previously discussed. We were willing to examine
  ***** and repair the site on Tuesday, per our common practice, but he was
  taken elsewhere. Our policy is to repair the first time free (not
  including the medications used), and any subsequent repairs are the
  financial responsibility of the owner.  I understand you are out of State
  and not here to address these issues personally, but you are the owner of
  *****. My obligation is to inform you of the situation as per our policy. I
  will attempt to contact your parents, as they are the ones you indicated are
  responsible for him while you are away. However, they will need to be
  financially responsible for the medications used to perform this repair,
  regardless of other clinics having performed their own attempts. 

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  Our goal is to repair *****'s surgery site, and make him
  comfortable and heal in the quickest way possible. Our concern is that our
  recommendation of having him in a cone and constantly supervised will only
  continue in his ongoing attempts to agitate the site. It must be
  understood the ultimate responsibility for his successful healing falls on his
  caretakers during the entirety of his healing process. 

  
  
  

   

  
  
  

  ***** *****

  
  
  

  House of Paws Veterinary Clinic, Owner    

  
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/29/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have taken my pet to this vet for about two years. My pet Cali has to be on monthly medication which has to be approved by the vet each time I place an order for the medication online. There has been about three incidents now where this specific vet has NOT APPROVED THE ORDER! I have had to contact her to remind her that she needs to respond back. She always offers that I fill the prescription at her office but I decline because I get it at a cheaper rate online.
  So on todays date, I had someone go in to her office to ask why she has not filled the order! (I also left two messages and she not returned my calls either). She stated she never received any order online and she has been having problems with online orders. She said that last time we had this same issue but one I complained she approved it that same day. This time she said they do not make phone calls and that she is not answering calls right now because of construction issues. This is unacceptable and completely unprofessional. Now I have to find an actual reputable vet and pay again.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/13/2022

  To Whom it May Concern:
  

  On 10/12/22, I received a letter from the Better Business Bureau regarding a complaint ID: 18***695 (576**967) filed by **** ******, a client of House of Paws Veterinary Clinic. I am the individual that has been personally involved with the situation surrounding the circumstances alleged by Ms. ******.

  Ms. ****** indicates she has been a client of House of Paws Veterinary Clinic for two years. I do not dispute this. On April 2, **21, we saw her dog, Cali, and prescribed two medications. One was Apoquel which is used to treat on going skin allergies. We filled the medication at the time of appointment, then authorized refills to cover a 12 month period. In April of **22, Ms. ****** contacted me to authorize more refills. During this conversation, I explained that we could not authorize another refill due to state law requires the pet to be seen at least once per year for on going conditions that require prolonged use of any medication. On April 27, **22, at Cali’s second appointment Cali was examined and it was determined that she was healthy enough to warrant another round of allotted refills to cover 12 months. Also, at this appointment we filled the Apoquel prescription because Ms. ****** was out of the medication. Within a few days, I received an on line request and authorized refills to allow for several refills. I personally contacted Ms. ****** and advised her of the refill authorizations and further explained that many on line pharmacies neglect to note the allotted refills and sometimes that creates an issue with refills. There were no issues moving forward because on June 3, **22, Ms. ****** contacted us to make an appointment for a new puppy. We made the appointment, but Ms. ****** canceled the appointment indicating the issue had resolved on it’s own. Then, on September 29 **22, more than 3 months later, Gabriel Sahagun, showed up at House of Paws inquiring about an on line refill for Cali. He indicated the Ms. ****** is constantly shopping for a cheaper price of Apoquel and asked if there was a generic form. I explained that I had already approved several refills for Cali’s Apoquel and was not going to call other pharmacies to authorize additional refills of the same medication. I explained that I did not have the time, nor is it our policy to call every pharmacy Ms. ****** wants to change to because she has found the medication cheaper. Gabriel indicated he would be taking over care of Cali because Ms. ****** is not able to afford the required medications that Cali needs, and I offered to refill the Apoquel so he could start Cali back on it without any further delay from the on line pharmacy. Due to Gabriel purchasing the medication, I asked if he wanted to be listed on the account for future appointments or refills, which he stated, “yes, please.”

   

  Our policy is to contact the pharmacy of the clients choice one time and authorize the necessary refills for pets at 6 or 12 month intervals depending on the pets health. It is an unreasonable expectation of Ms. ****** to impose monthly or bimonthly pharmacy requests with several on line pharmacies to suit her financial needs. If we were to do so, then there would be an unreasonable amount of open refills with various pharmacies. The proper protocol for Ms. ****** would be to contact the pharmacy of her current choice with the already approved refills and ask them to transfer it to the new pharmacy, and so on.

   

  In Ms. ******’ complaint she indicates there has been “at least” three incidents where the medication was not approved. I do not deny this. However, it should be noted that the medication was already approved with several refills, and only the subsequent requests were not made. Ms. ****** also indicates she would like the return of her last exam fee. This too is not an appropriate request due to the necessity of the exam in order to continue Cali on her medication regimen. Additionally, Ms. ****** is requesting further authorization for refills. Again, this is not an appropriate request due to Ms. ****** seeking out a new Veterinary Clinic and no longer being a client of House of Paws, per her request through her previous complaint.

   

  Ms. ******’ request are denied. However, I wish Ms. ****** and Cali the best of luck in finding a veterinary clinic that suits their financial and medical needs.

   

  ***** *****

  House of Paws Veterinary Clinic, Manager