by Dr. DeStephens on Jul 5th, 2014
This review by Ms. Patel is libelous and requires a response. Some of these sites such as this one that does not allow for a specific reply do an injustice to the practitioner since it allows for at times gross exaggerations of the facts and an unseemly opportunity to smear the practitioner while attempting to remain anonymous. However, I remember this situation clearly. Hopefully, my response will be instructive of the fact that there are always two sides to every story. Imagine yourself the target of such an anonymous smear. I have been a board certified Internal Medicine specialist since 1980 with subspecialty interests in both non invasive cardiology and in the evolving realm of Anti-Aging Medicine. During these over 30 years in practice I have never been sanctioned by any governing board of medicine at either the local, state or federal level. My privileges have never been curtailed and I have never even been sued for medical malpractice. In this day of get rich quick schemes, suing anyone for anything seems to be a growing trend. Regardless, the consistent quality care that I have offered my patients has helped to protect me from such law suits. I have served as a past president of the Alachua County chapter of the American Heart Association and am certified as an expert medical witness in the fields of Internal Medicine and Cardiology by the Florida court system. I am a member of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and both maintain and advance my certifications through ongoing study. I wish to respond first to the complaint posted by the individual that complained that she was injured by the pulsed light treatment. The pulsed light work that I offer through the office is part of my focus in Anti-Aging Medicine with such technology covering both hair removal as well as skin rejuvenation. I have a personal experience working with this technology for over 15 years. The complaint offered that she was injured by an intense light directly to her eyes for which she complained to the technician without according to her a proper response. She stated that following the treatment she complained of a prolonged sensitivity to light and dry eyes that she indicated she needed to see her eye doctor about. She further states that to this day, well over a year later that she continues to suffer from dry eyes and light sensitivity. I first heard of this issue 9 days after the supposed incident occurred and asked why she did not contact me directly immediately after she said the incident occurred. She went through the required test spots to properly tune the light to her skin as all patients do and offered no complaints. She complained only about the first actual treatment. She reported this claim to the Florida Dept of Professional Regulations who investigated and found no wrong doing. She hired an attorney to investigate who obtained copies of my records along with my detailed descriptions of my interactions with Ms. Patel and he confirmed that there was no basis for legal action against me. Ms. Patel's charges are fabricated and without foundation. There was no injury to her eyes from these treatments. We see commercials daily on the treatment of dry eyes and sensitivity associated with them. I am certain that if she has a problem at all that it is a common problem that had nothing to do with these treatments since the problems from the pulsed light that she claims has never been reported in the literature when proper goggles are worn as she admits to. She is engaged in typical buyer's remorse and chooses to slander me when I wouldn't accept her accusations of causing her eye damage.
Ah, and there was a comment about my having been arrested on abuse charges. In fact, the arrest did occur. But what Ms. Patel didn't mention was that all charges were dropped, the arrest record was deleted from all court and sheriff department records because my accuser who I had found in an extreme case of alcoholic intoxication who had just been released from the Crisis Stabilization Unit due to an earlier bout of extreme intoxication only 2 days earlier and had entered my home without my permission had belligerently refused to leave. I called the sheriff to have her removed after which while in an extreme state of intoxication accused me of assaulting her which I did not. In fact, it was later agreed that the arrest never even should have taken place and that the Sheriff's deputies should have taken more time to investigate the complaint rather than taking the word of someone severely inebriated with a long history of the same when it was I who had actually called the sheriff in the first place. When she sobered up 3 days later she admitted that she had lied about me assaulting her and she spent the next 90 days in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. But when Ms. Patel's interest is only in slandering me, it isn't surprising that she deliberately ignores the context read more
