Complaint Review: Randal Pham MD

Editor’s Note: The law protects and encourages Ripoff Report to make appropriate edits to Reports posted by third parties. Ripoff Report may use that editorial power to post findings from a court of law about the subject matter of Reports. In some cases, a Court may find that specific statements made by the author of a Ripoff Report are false and defamatory. When both sides of a dispute appear and contest the facts of a situation in court it is believed that the findings of the court are generally reliable and fair. Out of respect for the courts and the judicial process, Ripoff Report, upon request, may post that kind of finding with special prominence, and in some cases, may even redact the information specifically identified by the court as false from the original Report. In this instance, the Court Order combined with additional formal court documents received by Ripoff Report was specific enough regarding the statements made, and as such, the offending language has been (((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER))) by Ripoff Report.NOTE:Statements that have not been redacted may not have been specifically outlined in the Court Order and/or may have been considered statements of opinion. It is highly encouraged that consumers conduct their own additional research, from credible sources such as regulating authorities, prior to making any decisions on whether or not to do business with any individual or entity named as the information contained herein, and any negative inference derived from such information, may very well be false and misleading.

NOW TO THE EDITORIALLY REDACTED REPORT:

This is literally what the lawsuit says:

"Plaintiff Randal (or “Randall”) Pham is a nationally known ophthalmologist, talk show host, and radio personality in San Jose. Since 2000, Pham’s patients have sued him for medical malpractice at least three times.

Chinh is the grandmother of Defendants Jenny and Alvin. From 1999 until July 2012, Truong was Pham’s patient. For over ten years, Chinh arrived on time for her appointments. And for over ten years, Pham was consistently ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Despite arriving on time, Chinh often had ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)) to see her doctor. Defendants Alvin and Jenny often drove their grandmother to her appointments at Pham’s office, each time ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Only once was ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)): On July 7th, 2012 -- after Pham had seen the online reviews, and after he decided to sue Chinh's granddaughter and grandson. Understandably, Chinh is no longer Pham’s patient.

Young Lee is the father of Defendants Jenny and Alvin. Young Lee was one of Pham’s patients for over ten years, from 2000 until 2012. Back in March, Young Lee had an appointment with Pham; Pham was ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)), of course, but that’s not the end of it. Pham examined Young Lee, who had complained of difficulty reading his computer screen. Pham told Young Lee that he needed eyeglasses, which Pham could sell to him. Those glasses, Pham said, would cost $350, but Pham could give Young Lee a “discount” if Young Lee “paid him right away.” Young Lee agreed, and paid Pham $199 that same evening around 6:30 p.m.

Fifteen minutes after his appointment, Young had a change of heart, and left Pham a voice message canceling the eyeglasses order. The next morning, on March 28, Pham called Young to say he could not cancel the order because the eyeglasses had been “ordered” and had (somehow) already arrived. Young drove to Pham’s office, where Pham presented the “new” glasses, which were dirty and appeared used. When Young took the glasses home and tried to read the computer screen, he could not. The eyeglasses were useless. Young immediately called Pham to complain; Pham was dismissive, telling Young that if he wanted to read better he should “move the computer screen closer.”

Young showed the glasses to his friends and family. They remarked that they recognized the eyeglasses; they were not $350 prescription eyeglasses, ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Young’s son, Defendant Alvin, performed an online search and ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)) on Amazon.com.

Young returned to Pham’s office on March 29, 2012 and showed Pham a printout of the Amazon.com advertisement. He told Pham the glasses were not ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER))and demanded a refund. Pham said nothing except that he would not refund the money. Young left the useless glasses at Pham’s office and left. 

A few days later, Pham called Young back. After seeing negative reviews about Pham online, Pham had changed his mind about the refund, and said he would refund Young’s money. Pham asked Young to remove the online reviews, which, of course, Young did not write. 

This isn’t the first time ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Pham is ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Because of Pham’s systemic pattern of abuse of elderly and Vietnamese immigrant populations, Jenny filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau exposing Pham’s ((REDACTED BASED ON FINDINGS VIA COURT ORDER)). Pham retaliated by filing this lawsuit against Jenny and Alvin for defamation."