This HTML5 document contains 9 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n3http://www.openvoc.eu/poi#
schemahttp://schema.org/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n2http://data.yelp.com/Review/id/
n7http://data.yelp.com/Business/id/
revhttp://purl.org/stuff/rev#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n6http://data.yelp.com/User/id/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:PJCd2m4QKtbNBMOtAM38fw
rdf:type
rev:Review
schema:dateCreated
2013-09-21T00:00:00
schema:itemReviewed
n7:uWvNaxyZdqFZr0jnex50Ew
n3:funnyReviews
0
rev:rating
1
n3:usefulReviews
5
rev:text
This might be one of the most unethical practices in the valley. I originally contacted them regarding a small port wine stain that I have and asked if that was a possibility to be removed. They asked I come in and after a brief 3-4 minute "observation", they informed me they didn't provide that type treatment or "laser". Upon leaving, I specifically asked how much I owed for my 5 minute visit (mind you, they could've simply told me over the phone they were unable to treat my stain due to lacking the proper equipment) and a response of "oh, don't worry, you don't owe anything" was given. Months later, I received a $100 "exam" bill in addition to my medical insurance co. confirming a charge of service. When re-visiting the office, we were told we were incorrect in our view of my visit. Sadly, I will never return and will advise any future patients to guard against costs stemming from this practice. This type of unethical medical practice is a reason costs have escalated where they are today.
n3:coolReviews
0
rev:reviewer
n6:2RpfbWyHSFGtbPVAOPtP8Q