March 25th ,2019, my wife went to Signature for her new prescription which had changed. She was told Signature no longer carried the lenses purchased the prior time from Signature, and that the new lenses they now carried were better (plus more expensive). So she placed her trust in their representation and Signature made digitally enhanced progressive lenses for her severe stigmatism. Hours later the same day, while driving from Shaker to our internist at U H in Solon, she experienced double vision on the highway, and barely managed to pull into the parking lot off Som terrified and crying from her sudden loss of vision, actually not being able to see well enough to drive. We left her car there overnight, she could not see without her glasses and could not see with them. Fortunately she saved her old lenses so the following day I returned to Signature to replace the new lenses with the old prescription which worked, but we did not know the cause of the problem. University Opthalmologists had a brilliant young specialist in double vision, and as this was an emergency scheduled an appointment about 5 days after the incident, who explained the problem was caused because digitally enhance progressive lenses are not advisable for a severe stigmatism. We were so concerned about her vision I attended the exam with my wife. Prior to the exam we discovered the prescription could not be verified as it was a digitally enhanced progressive lens. Further after leaving the exam on the way out learned from the manager of University Optical that a good optician knows this is the wrong kind of lens, and is considered "upselling." I took my wife home and went directly to signature to return the new digitally enhanced lenses for a $591 credit. (This did not include the frames) Shane, the optician on duty who made the lens said he had never heard about any problems... So today I decided to call Michael Millstein MD the CEO of the Clinic Opthalmology group that owns Signature, who is a fine MD, but explained in conversation he specializes in surgery so is not conversant with lenses. And had Bessie, an optician at Signature he knows well. When I attempted to explain what happened to Bessie, suddenly I was on trial and playing 20 questions with a prosecutor, and not someone interested in helping my wife feel better about what happened... like even offering to pay the medical expenses incurred. So when I confronted Bessie with the thought it was Signature's obligation to do something appropriate as my wife could easily have suffered a terrible accident driving blindly down the highway...when suddenly she lost vision, she continued to quiz me and I said I did not need to answer goddamn questions it is..... she cut me off, told me she would not listen to anyone swear at her and hung up on me. So I called Millstein and left word to have his manager of Signature who is a optometrist call me, hopefully for a more rational conversation than Bessie, but just got a message from his office that he was not talking about this again. Bad advice that could have resulted in a terrible accident creates liability. I am not interested in filing a legal action, but am upset by a response that is termed "stonewalling." This is not the way to resolve something that was this grave, but was essentially a denial just in case I was intending to sue them. Which I am not. THIS IS A WARNING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM UNSCRUPULOUS BUSINESS PRACTICES AND WORSE BAD ADVICE WHICH COULD EASILY HAVE RESULTED IN A TRAGIC ACCIDENT. read more
