If ever a saying, 'buyer beware,' rings true, it certainly appliers to this medical practice,…read moreValley View Dermatology (VVD). Only part 1 of review.
But before proceeding, some necessary comparative context. Beginning circa 1995, and continuing for about the next 15-16 years, at the Salem, OR, practice's predecessor name, The Dermatology Clinic, I was seen by the same excellent dermatologist and his same excellent medical assistant. This patient-providers' interactions were so cordial they extended to the fact the Dr. wanted me to address him by his first name. Moreover, given the long term tenure of the medical assistant, communications, e.g., about the results of a lab report were always clear, prompt, accurate, and reliable. But 10+ years ago that Dr. retired.
Subsequently, as events spanning the last several years (until recently, that is) have eventuated, the replacement dermatologist's comportment overall has been characterized, based upon my direct personal experiences, as follows: only marginally proficient; largely impersonal, never once having addressed me either by first or last name; an evidently ever changing cast medical assistant's; despite my now long history, dating back many decades, of having developed skin cancers, principally, but not exclusively, the basal cell type, repeatedly when a lesion has readily, visibly appeared problematic, rather than first taking a biopsy, this Dr.'s persistent mode of conduct has instead been to access his canister of liquid nitrogen (so- named cryosurgery/freezing) and spray the involved area. The problem? Multiple times in the past, and extending into successive office visits, the Dr. continued to freeze the same area. One example, when ultimately it became obvious, including to me from early on, that the lesion persisted, in more than one instance, and at my insistence, finally a biopsy was taken. Furthermore, also in several instances the biopsy came back positive for skin cancer. One of reasonably recent example with a yet to be determined treatment regimen pertains to a lesion not on the scalp. On the occasion of three different spaced by several months office visits the same Dr. 'froze' it. The, of very recent, by other means, the area was found to have a basal cell carcinoma! At many other times previously on the scalp, after mostly multiple bouts of freezing, each time highly invasive, MOHS surgery ensued. Likewise notably concerning, the time lag which separated the initial freezing and the biopsy facilitated the likelihood the malignancy had further spread. Consequently, the need to remove still more tissue! Additionally, one may ask why this Dr.'s ongoing practice of first relying--and more than once-- on freezing irrespective of the patient's decades long running history of having skin cancers. One offered explanation. Cryosurgery is at once quick, easy, and readily billable!
Now referenced a specific focus on more contemporary matters, including some added relevant context.
During about 2022, two MOHS procedures on the same day occurred. Next followed another MOHS surgery on the same body part in 2024. That at the hands of a different dermatologist. But with a post-surgical complication, as had happened owing to the same MOHS provider many years earlier. Then in 2025, another area on the same part of the body was 'frozen.' Later approaching the end of the year, even by simple touch, I could feel in that location what quite likely later roved another developing skin cancer. In this instance, and given the repeated poor history of the effectiveness of the application of freezing, I opted to apply a regimen of a prescription anti-skin cancer cream.
Thereafter, during the first week of January 2026, an office visit transpired with the then current dermatologist. Too, a biopsy was taken. A week or two later received was a basically generic-in-content voicemail. Left not by the Dr., but rather an unidentified female medical assistant. One of the dermatologist's ever changing series 'menu' of employees. The very imprecise in nature message included "You have skin cancer." Thereafter, I phoned VVD's general phone number and then asked to be connected to the section of this particular Dr. However, I received a voice mail message that no one was available. So I left my own message and pointedly and pertinently asked, 'what type of skin cancer, for example, basal cell or squamous?' I never received an answer.
Consequently, in very early February 2026 I wrote and then mailed a letter to the Dr. of record. In it, in part, stated was that I had not been told the type of skin malignancy. Additionally, I requested, preferably for expedience sake, a PDF copy of the applicable pathology report be emailed to me. Keep in mind, too, the Dr. had available both my email and residence addresses, as well as the mobile phone number.
The result of that mailing was twofold. The Dr. never replied.
