Complaint Review: Sara Verdick @ Simbah's Dog House

can be considered neglect. Failing to take a dog in to a veterinarian for a cut you considered serious is neglectful.

I'm in Wyoming, just happened to read this particular complaint, and felt like weighing in because of a similar incident.

A rescue lhasa I took in was matted to the skin and quite a difficult job for the groomer, as ALL the hair had to be taken off (otherwise, why would the clipper blades be so close to the skin? For that reason, I do think the owner of the poodle wasn't paying much attention to the condition of the coat). Said lhasa was nicked, I took the dog to the vet for treatment. The groomer was not, in my mind, liable. The person who didn't groom the dog in the first place was the issue. However, my groomer offered to pay for the treatment simply because I had ALREADY gone to the vet, because I had deemed it important enough to take care of.

Perhaps your groomer saw the lack of concern, and also thought it wouldn't have happened if the dog had been cared for properly.

At any rate, letting the cut get infected, taking the dog to a "friend" for care instead of someone who went to veterinary school, and waiting for someone else to pay the bill before seeking QUALIFIED treatment screams neglectful owner.

I checked on google today to see if this report still came up when this business was searched and was disappointed to see that it didn't, atleast not on the first search page. Just wanted to make sure people still have the option of viewing this report before choosing a place to have their dog groomed.

Delilah's injuries were made out to be minor by Ms. Verdick, who is supposed to be a professional. Do they look minor to you? Wounds don't get bigger with time, they get smaller as they heal. Why don't you ask Ms. Verdick (the professional) why she didn't send the dog directly to her (Sara's) veternarian upon cutting her that day? Katrina wouldn't have gained any money from that, nor was she looking to do so when she asked Ms. Verdick to do just that. However, Delilah would have been cared for and the matter over with. Why did Sara Verdick refuse on subsequent days to allow Katrina to take Delilah to see her (Sara's) veternarian. Why did she (Sara) argue and spend days going back and forth with Katrina telling her she would send the dog to her own (Sara's) veternarian, then she wouldn't, and then telling her she wouldn't pay the bill if Katrina tried to take Delilah to her own (Katrina's) veternarian. Perhaps it was her (Sara's) own covetous nature regarding money? When it was determined that Ms. Verdick truly had no compassion for what she had done to Delilah, and Delilah's injury hadn't gotten better with first aid care and attention, she was taken to see the veternarian, regardless of cost or knowing if Katrina would get recompensated. Everyone knows that money is tight in a military family, especially when a loved one is off performing their military duties. You can only hope that when somebody does something to wrong you or someone you care about, in this case Delilah, that they will do the right thing. You can't blame Katrina for hoping that would be the outcome in this case. If Ms. Verdick had returned the money collected that day for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, there is no doubt that every penny would have been spent on Delilah's veternary care that very same day. But she didn't, and sometimes, you have to do what you can with what you have and hope things get better as they go. I have served honorably in the military, and I was lucky I was in a place and position to lend a helping hand to a fellow armed services member's loved one as they didn't have anybody else who could do so at the time. Both she and Delilah were victims in this, so put the blame where it belongs, with Sara Verdick and Simbah's Dog House. By the way, thank you to the Marine gentleman who volunteered and delivered the court summons back a few months ago. In closing, Katrina didn't make any money on all of this, nor was she looking to do so. Katrina filed with the small claims court (which I think is public record) only to get the money back for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, and the veternarian bill which Ms. Verdick should rightly have paid to begin with, being the responsible party that injured Delilah. I will again urge all military personnel, both Navy and Marine, including their families, to avoid such a business as Simbah's Dog House, who would treat one of your own with such malice and disrespect. Not to mention the unsolicited and uncalled for sexually based comments about Katrina made by Ms. Sara Verdick's son.

Delilah's injuries were made out to be minor by Ms. Verdick, who is supposed to be a professional. Do they look minor to you? Wounds don't get bigger with time, they get smaller as they heal. Why don't you ask Ms. Verdick (the professional) why she didn't send the dog directly to her (Sara's) veternarian upon cutting her that day? Katrina wouldn't have gained any money from that, nor was she looking to do so when she asked Ms. Verdick to do just that. However, Delilah would have been cared for and the matter over with. Why did Sara Verdick refuse on subsequent days to allow Katrina to take Delilah to see her (Sara's) veternarian. Why did she (Sara) argue and spend days going back and forth with Katrina telling her she would send the dog to her own (Sara's) veternarian, then she wouldn't, and then telling her she wouldn't pay the bill if Katrina tried to take Delilah to her own (Katrina's) veternarian. Perhaps it was her (Sara's) own covetous nature regarding money? When it was determined that Ms. Verdick truly had no compassion for what she had done to Delilah, and Delilah's injury hadn't gotten better with first aid care and attention, she was taken to see the veternarian, regardless of cost or knowing if Katrina would get recompensated. Everyone knows that money is tight in a military family, especially when a loved one is off performing their military duties. You can only hope that when somebody does something to wrong you or someone you care about, in this case Delilah, that they will do the right thing. You can't blame Katrina for hoping that would be the outcome in this case. If Ms. Verdick had returned the money collected that day for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, there is no doubt that every penny would have been spent on Delilah's veternary care that very same day. But she didn't, and sometimes, you have to do what you can with what you have and hope things get better as they go. I have served honorably in the military, and I was lucky I was in a place and position to lend a helping hand to a fellow armed services member's loved one as they didn't have anybody else who could do so at the time. Both she and Delilah were victims in this, so put the blame where it belongs, with Sara Verdick and Simbah's Dog House. By the way, thank you to the Marine gentleman who volunteered and delivered the court summons back a few months ago. In closing, Katrina didn't make any money on all of this, nor was she looking to do so. Katrina filed with the small claims court (which I think is public record) only to get the money back for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, and the veternarian bill which Ms. Verdick should rightly have paid to begin with, being the responsible party that injured Delilah. I will again urge all military personnel, both Navy and Marine, including their families, to avoid such a business as Simbah's Dog House, who would treat one of your own with such malice and disrespect. Not to mention the unsolicited and uncalled for sexually based comments about Katrina made by Ms. Sara Verdick's son.

Delilah's injuries were made out to be minor by Ms. Verdick, who is supposed to be a professional. Do they look minor to you? Wounds don't get bigger with time, they get smaller as they heal. Why don't you ask Ms. Verdick (the professional) why she didn't send the dog directly to her (Sara's) veternarian upon cutting her that day? Katrina wouldn't have gained any money from that, nor was she looking to do so when she asked Ms. Verdick to do just that. However, Delilah would have been cared for and the matter over with. Why did Sara Verdick refuse on subsequent days to allow Katrina to take Delilah to see her (Sara's) veternarian. Why did she (Sara) argue and spend days going back and forth with Katrina telling her she would send the dog to her own (Sara's) veternarian, then she wouldn't, and then telling her she wouldn't pay the bill if Katrina tried to take Delilah to her own (Katrina's) veternarian. Perhaps it was her (Sara's) own covetous nature regarding money? When it was determined that Ms. Verdick truly had no compassion for what she had done to Delilah, and Delilah's injury hadn't gotten better with first aid care and attention, she was taken to see the veternarian, regardless of cost or knowing if Katrina would get recompensated. Everyone knows that money is tight in a military family, especially when a loved one is off performing their military duties. You can only hope that when somebody does something to wrong you or someone you care about, in this case Delilah, that they will do the right thing. You can't blame Katrina for hoping that would be the outcome in this case. If Ms. Verdick had returned the money collected that day for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, there is no doubt that every penny would have been spent on Delilah's veternary care that very same day. But she didn't, and sometimes, you have to do what you can with what you have and hope things get better as they go. I have served honorably in the military, and I was lucky I was in a place and position to lend a helping hand to a fellow armed services member's loved one as they didn't have anybody else who could do so at the time. Both she and Delilah were victims in this, so put the blame where it belongs, with Sara Verdick and Simbah's Dog House. By the way, thank you to the Marine gentleman who volunteered and delivered the court summons back a few months ago. In closing, Katrina didn't make any money on all of this, nor was she looking to do so. Katrina filed with the small claims court (which I think is public record) only to get the money back for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, and the veternarian bill which Ms. Verdick should rightly have paid to begin with, being the responsible party that injured Delilah. I will again urge all military personnel, both Navy and Marine, including their families, to avoid such a business as Simbah's Dog House, who would treat one of your own with such malice and disrespect. Not to mention the unsolicited and uncalled for sexually based comments about Katrina made by Ms. Sara Verdick's son.

Delilah's injuries were made out to be minor by Ms. Verdick, who is supposed to be a professional. Do they look minor to you? Wounds don't get bigger with time, they get smaller as they heal. Why don't you ask Ms. Verdick (the professional) why she didn't send the dog directly to her (Sara's) veternarian upon cutting her that day? Katrina wouldn't have gained any money from that, nor was she looking to do so when she asked Ms. Verdick to do just that. However, Delilah would have been cared for and the matter over with. Why did Sara Verdick refuse on subsequent days to allow Katrina to take Delilah to see her (Sara's) veternarian. Why did she (Sara) argue and spend days going back and forth with Katrina telling her she would send the dog to her own (Sara's) veternarian, then she wouldn't, and then telling her she wouldn't pay the bill if Katrina tried to take Delilah to her own (Katrina's) veternarian. Perhaps it was her (Sara's) own covetous nature regarding money? When it was determined that Ms. Verdick truly had no compassion for what she had done to Delilah, and Delilah's injury hadn't gotten better with first aid care and attention, she was taken to see the veternarian, regardless of cost or knowing if Katrina would get recompensated. Everyone knows that money is tight in a military family, especially when a loved one is off performing their military duties. You can only hope that when somebody does something to wrong you or someone you care about, in this case Delilah, that they will do the right thing. You can't blame Katrina for hoping that would be the outcome in this case. If Ms. Verdick had returned the money collected that day for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, there is no doubt that every penny would have been spent on Delilah's veternary care that very same day. But she didn't, and sometimes, you have to do what you can with what you have and hope things get better as they go. I have served honorably in the military, and I was lucky I was in a place and position to lend a helping hand to a fellow armed services member's loved one as they didn't have anybody else who could do so at the time. Both she and Delilah were victims in this, so put the blame where it belongs, with Sara Verdick and Simbah's Dog House. By the way, thank you to the Marine gentleman who volunteered and delivered the court summons back a few months ago. In closing, Katrina didn't make any money on all of this, nor was she looking to do so. Katrina filed with the small claims court (which I think is public record) only to get the money back for the grooming session in which Delilah was injured, and the veternarian bill which Ms. Verdick should rightly have paid to begin with, being the responsible party that injured Delilah. I will again urge all military personnel, both Navy and Marine, including their families, to avoid such a business as Simbah's Dog House, who would treat one of your own with such malice and disrespect. Not to mention the unsolicited and uncalled for sexually based comments about Katrina made by Ms. Sara Verdick's son.

I am a vet technician at PetsMart and was just curious as to why wasn't the dog taken to a vet the same day and not days or weeks later?????

Was it care for a dog or care for a buck?

In regards to the last rebuttal from the "groomer" in Oceanside,
I have never gone with Katrina, nor would I have reason to go with her to a groomer to pick up her dog. I only got involved in this situation due to the injury done to Delilah, and that being a few days after it happened. I think you have your customers mixed up, as of course there would be no legal standing for someone to sue over a haircut that was too short, that is just stupid. In this case, did you see the pictures of Delilah's injury above? Simbah's Dog House admits they inflicted that injury, so why all this drama after the fact? Furthermore, the last time Katrina took Delilah to be groomed by anyone other than doing it herself at home, was when she was injured by Ms. Sara Verdick at Simbah's Dog House. She is too scared now that somebody else will injure her dog, or that Delilah is too traumatized by what happened to be able to be left with a groomer. That was in September. Katrina grooms Delilah herself and gives her a bath every two weeks, her house is spotless, Delilah is clean and well cared for, as she has been all along. So when is it that she was supposedly bringing her dog to be groomed by you, especially if as the son/ part owner of Simbah's claimed the dog wasn't groomed but once every six months and was going to Simbah's for the past 1 and 1/2 years? Get your stories straight, then come back with a real response. You obviously wrote the above as a misguided friend of the Verdicks. I feel sorry that that friendship has lead you to make up lies for them, and at that, not even feasible lies if you are trying to tie in your story with theirs. Katrina hasn't lived in Southern California more than 2 years. Katrina let things go after getting the money back for the grooming, veternarian visit, and court fees. If she was out pulling some sort of a scam, or just a money hungry person, she could have refused Ms. Verdick's request to close the case and receive the monies due her, and could have instead sought damages in court, but she didn't. Please don't make her regret that decision by making more lies and slanderous comments regarding her, Delilah, or myself. Let it go, Simbah's Dog House was at fault, they injured Delilah and then made matters worse by treating Katrina with contempt, curses, and threats, but instead of looking for revenge, she was woman enough to let the whole thing be settled by the courts, and ultimately out of court, without seeking more money than she was due.

I am a groomer in Oceanside, CA where Katrina brought her dog to be groomed on two different occassiions. The first time she came in she complained a lot about the hair cut and wanted a discount because she said it was to short. So I gave her $5 off.

Four months later she brought the dog back to be groomed again...full of matts and knots, fecess in the hair, fleas and scabs... a real nightmare for a groomer to try and do something with.
This time when she picked up the dog there was another woman with her, she (the other woman) started examining the dog and saying ugly things about the grooming job. The two women stood in my grooming facility talking very loud and angry, threating to sue me for the work I had performed.

In my opinion these two women are a menis to society. They try to rip off every one they come in contact with.

You women should be aware that many groomers know each other in Oceanside and Vista and word gets out about difficult customers. Maybe you should stop and think...who is going to wash the dog now.

So far I know of 5 shops that will not do the dog because of the behavior of the two women owners.

Why don't you act like adults and stop trying to con every one you do business with.
Virginia, Oceanside Pet Groomer

I am a groomer in Oceanside, CA where Katrina brought her dog to be groomed on two different occassiions. The first time she came in she complained a lot about the hair cut and wanted a discount because she said it was to short. So I gave her $5 off.

Four months later she brought the dog back to be groomed again...full of matts and knots, fecess in the hair, fleas and scabs... a real nightmare for a groomer to try and do something with.
This time when she picked up the dog there was another woman with her, she (the other woman) started examining the dog and saying ugly things about the grooming job. The two women stood in my grooming facility talking very loud and angry, threating to sue me for the work I had performed.

In my opinion these two women are a menis to society. They try to rip off every one they come in contact with.

You women should be aware that many groomers know each other in Oceanside and Vista and word gets out about difficult customers. Maybe you should stop and think...who is going to wash the dog now.

So far I know of 5 shops that will not do the dog because of the behavior of the two women owners.

Why don't you act like adults and stop trying to con every one you do business with.
Virginia, Oceanside Pet Groomer

I am a groomer in Oceanside, CA where Katrina brought her dog to be groomed on two different occassiions. The first time she came in she complained a lot about the hair cut and wanted a discount because she said it was to short. So I gave her $5 off.

Four months later she brought the dog back to be groomed again...full of matts and knots, fecess in the hair, fleas and scabs... a real nightmare for a groomer to try and do something with.
This time when she picked up the dog there was another woman with her, she (the other woman) started examining the dog and saying ugly things about the grooming job. The two women stood in my grooming facility talking very loud and angry, threating to sue me for the work I had performed.

In my opinion these two women are a menis to society. They try to rip off every one they come in contact with.

You women should be aware that many groomers know each other in Oceanside and Vista and word gets out about difficult customers. Maybe you should stop and think...who is going to wash the dog now.

So far I know of 5 shops that will not do the dog because of the behavior of the two women owners.

Why don't you act like adults and stop trying to con every one you do business with.
Virginia, Oceanside Pet Groomer

I am a groomer in Oceanside, CA where Katrina brought her dog to be groomed on two different occassiions. The first time she came in she complained a lot about the hair cut and wanted a discount because she said it was to short. So I gave her $5 off.

Four months later she brought the dog back to be groomed again...full of matts and knots, fecess in the hair, fleas and scabs... a real nightmare for a groomer to try and do something with.
This time when she picked up the dog there was another woman with her, she (the other woman) started examining the dog and saying ugly things about the grooming job. The two women stood in my grooming facility talking very loud and angry, threating to sue me for the work I had performed.

In my opinion these two women are a menis to society. They try to rip off every one they come in contact with.

You women should be aware that many groomers know each other in Oceanside and Vista and word gets out about difficult customers. Maybe you should stop and think...who is going to wash the dog now.

So far I know of 5 shops that will not do the dog because of the behavior of the two women owners.

Why don't you act like adults and stop trying to con every one you do business with.
Virginia, Oceanside Pet Groomer

To the son of Sara Verdick, the idiot who wrote the last reply,
I would care about any dog that was so horribly injured, whether it belong to any friend of mine or a total stranger. You are a trash talking, bitter, disrespectful person. You might want to seek the counsel of your Mom's friend, the lawyer, prior to continuing on in this line of slander, libel, and harrassment, words you are so fond of throwing around, whithout the intelligence to actually know the definition of. As for your recent comments, they will be passed on as further evidence of your bad business practices and obvious desire to lose even more customers due to word of mouth of those who actually care about animals and their well-being. Your comments deserve no further addressing.

If the dog is not yours then why is it so important to you. Are you and Katrina secret lovers? My business is properly licensed, kept clean and I let go the employee. Wearing something skimpy trying to flaunt ones' sexuality means alot if tyring to get something for nothing. I run a business not a brothel. She can go to Tijuana for that.

My name is Melissa, I never claimed Delilah was mine, if you even read the original message you can see what date this was filed. I also stated that Sara Verdick had payed the court and veternarina bill to Katrina via her lawyer and the case was closed on 11/29/05. With regards to "slandering" your business, it isn't slander if it is true, and the truth is verfied not only by pictures of the injury, but an admission of guilt from the wrong doer, such as paying the veternarian bill and court fees so she wouldn't have to go to court and lose anyway. Furthermore, I see Delilah on a daily basis, and she is never matted, covered in feces, or otherwise mistreated by her owner. That, Sir, is slander. Do you have pictures you can post to prove that accusation, because we had pictures to prove ours. As for your accusation that Katrina pulled off any scab on her dog, I am witness to both the fact that there never was a scab to begin with, and that Katrina would never put her dog through that kind of pain and neither would I. Delilah's wound was cleaned with wound cleanser and antibacterial cream for several days, and when it became sadly clear that her wound wasn't healing on it's own, and Ms. Verdick still refused to send her to see her veternarian, she was taken to Katrina's veternarian for further care.
Katrina never asked for cash anything, even prior to taking Delilah to the veternarian. In fact, she only asked Ms. Verdick to call her own veternarian and have them see Delilah and take care of her injuries, which she ultimately refused to do. After we presented Ms. Verdick with the veternarian bill, which you say was what she wanted, she is the one who involved a lawyer, still refused to pay, and forced Katrina to go to the courts to try and get this settled.
As for your accusations of Katrina wearing a skimpy blouse, what does that have to do with her dog getting injured by your business? As for the "employee" who "nicked" Delilah, it is your responsibility as an owner to hire experienced, professional groomers, and you are still responsible for injuries caused by them as the owner of the business.
If my claims in the report have caused others to take note, or write in, as one did, to agree with and back up Ms. Verdicks bad treatment of her customers, then that is great. I also told several aquaintances who are fellow dog owners about what happened to Katrina and Delilah and they have made the choice to take their business elsewhere, as is their perogative and mine. Certainly as Ms. Verdick treats her customers in the manner described by the gentleman who wrote a response to my original report, and as witnessed by myself and Katrina, she is chasing off plenty of business on her own. My advice to you sir, is to get properly licensed for the business you are running as well as the "proffessional" grooming offered by Ms. Verdick, keep your equipment clean, and send Ms. Verdick to Anger Management Counseling if you hope to maintain a business in good standing with the community. So far, there have been two people who have come forward in all of this to state their own mistreatment at the hands of your business partner, and even another dog that was injured during a "professional" grooming session at Simbah's Dog House. That poor woman's dog took two months to heal properly from the "nick" it received, even after the owner took it promptly to the very same veternarian we did. I stated the outcome as I though it stood on 11/29/05 of this report, but see that you are choosing to keep it going. Therefore, as is my right, I will respond to any rebuttals you may write, and continue to encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed customers being treated badly to reply to my original report, or to write their own.

My name is Melissa, I never claimed Delilah was mine, if you even read the original message you can see what date this was filed. I also stated that Sara Verdick had payed the court and veternarina bill to Katrina via her lawyer and the case was closed on 11/29/05. With regards to "slandering" your business, it isn't slander if it is true, and the truth is verfied not only by pictures of the injury, but an admission of guilt from the wrong doer, such as paying the veternarian bill and court fees so she wouldn't have to go to court and lose anyway. Furthermore, I see Delilah on a daily basis, and she is never matted, covered in feces, or otherwise mistreated by her owner. That, Sir, is slander. Do you have pictures you can post to prove that accusation, because we had pictures to prove ours. As for your accusation that Katrina pulled off any scab on her dog, I am witness to both the fact that there never was a scab to begin with, and that Katrina would never put her dog through that kind of pain and neither would I. Delilah's wound was cleaned with wound cleanser and antibacterial cream for several days, and when it became sadly clear that her wound wasn't healing on it's own, and Ms. Verdick still refused to send her to see her veternarian, she was taken to Katrina's veternarian for further care.
Katrina never asked for cash anything, even prior to taking Delilah to the veternarian. In fact, she only asked Ms. Verdick to call her own veternarian and have them see Delilah and take care of her injuries, which she ultimately refused to do. After we presented Ms. Verdick with the veternarian bill, which you say was what she wanted, she is the one who involved a lawyer, still refused to pay, and forced Katrina to go to the courts to try and get this settled.
As for your accusations of Katrina wearing a skimpy blouse, what does that have to do with her dog getting injured by your business? As for the "employee" who "nicked" Delilah, it is your responsibility as an owner to hire experienced, professional groomers, and you are still responsible for injuries caused by them as the owner of the business.
If my claims in the report have caused others to take note, or write in, as one did, to agree with and back up Ms. Verdicks bad treatment of her customers, then that is great. I also told several aquaintances who are fellow dog owners about what happened to Katrina and Delilah and they have made the choice to take their business elsewhere, as is their perogative and mine. Certainly as Ms. Verdick treats her customers in the manner described by the gentleman who wrote a response to my original report, and as witnessed by myself and Katrina, she is chasing off plenty of business on her own. My advice to you sir, is to get properly licensed for the business you are running as well as the "proffessional" grooming offered by Ms. Verdick, keep your equipment clean, and send Ms. Verdick to Anger Management Counseling if you hope to maintain a business in good standing with the community. So far, there have been two people who have come forward in all of this to state their own mistreatment at the hands of your business partner, and even another dog that was injured during a "professional" grooming session at Simbah's Dog House. That poor woman's dog took two months to heal properly from the "nick" it received, even after the owner took it promptly to the very same veternarian we did. I stated the outcome as I though it stood on 11/29/05 of this report, but see that you are choosing to keep it going. Therefore, as is my right, I will respond to any rebuttals you may write, and continue to encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed customers being treated badly to reply to my original report, or to write their own.

My name is Melissa, I never claimed Delilah was mine, if you even read the original message you can see what date this was filed. I also stated that Sara Verdick had payed the court and veternarina bill to Katrina via her lawyer and the case was closed on 11/29/05. With regards to "slandering" your business, it isn't slander if it is true, and the truth is verfied not only by pictures of the injury, but an admission of guilt from the wrong doer, such as paying the veternarian bill and court fees so she wouldn't have to go to court and lose anyway. Furthermore, I see Delilah on a daily basis, and she is never matted, covered in feces, or otherwise mistreated by her owner. That, Sir, is slander. Do you have pictures you can post to prove that accusation, because we had pictures to prove ours. As for your accusation that Katrina pulled off any scab on her dog, I am witness to both the fact that there never was a scab to begin with, and that Katrina would never put her dog through that kind of pain and neither would I. Delilah's wound was cleaned with wound cleanser and antibacterial cream for several days, and when it became sadly clear that her wound wasn't healing on it's own, and Ms. Verdick still refused to send her to see her veternarian, she was taken to Katrina's veternarian for further care.
Katrina never asked for cash anything, even prior to taking Delilah to the veternarian. In fact, she only asked Ms. Verdick to call her own veternarian and have them see Delilah and take care of her injuries, which she ultimately refused to do. After we presented Ms. Verdick with the veternarian bill, which you say was what she wanted, she is the one who involved a lawyer, still refused to pay, and forced Katrina to go to the courts to try and get this settled.
As for your accusations of Katrina wearing a skimpy blouse, what does that have to do with her dog getting injured by your business? As for the "employee" who "nicked" Delilah, it is your responsibility as an owner to hire experienced, professional groomers, and you are still responsible for injuries caused by them as the owner of the business.
If my claims in the report have caused others to take note, or write in, as one did, to agree with and back up Ms. Verdicks bad treatment of her customers, then that is great. I also told several aquaintances who are fellow dog owners about what happened to Katrina and Delilah and they have made the choice to take their business elsewhere, as is their perogative and mine. Certainly as Ms. Verdick treats her customers in the manner described by the gentleman who wrote a response to my original report, and as witnessed by myself and Katrina, she is chasing off plenty of business on her own. My advice to you sir, is to get properly licensed for the business you are running as well as the "proffessional" grooming offered by Ms. Verdick, keep your equipment clean, and send Ms. Verdick to Anger Management Counseling if you hope to maintain a business in good standing with the community. So far, there have been two people who have come forward in all of this to state their own mistreatment at the hands of your business partner, and even another dog that was injured during a "professional" grooming session at Simbah's Dog House. That poor woman's dog took two months to heal properly from the "nick" it received, even after the owner took it promptly to the very same veternarian we did. I stated the outcome as I though it stood on 11/29/05 of this report, but see that you are choosing to keep it going. Therefore, as is my right, I will respond to any rebuttals you may write, and continue to encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed customers being treated badly to reply to my original report, or to write their own.

My name is Melissa, I never claimed Delilah was mine, if you even read the original message you can see what date this was filed. I also stated that Sara Verdick had payed the court and veternarina bill to Katrina via her lawyer and the case was closed on 11/29/05. With regards to "slandering" your business, it isn't slander if it is true, and the truth is verfied not only by pictures of the injury, but an admission of guilt from the wrong doer, such as paying the veternarian bill and court fees so she wouldn't have to go to court and lose anyway. Furthermore, I see Delilah on a daily basis, and she is never matted, covered in feces, or otherwise mistreated by her owner. That, Sir, is slander. Do you have pictures you can post to prove that accusation, because we had pictures to prove ours. As for your accusation that Katrina pulled off any scab on her dog, I am witness to both the fact that there never was a scab to begin with, and that Katrina would never put her dog through that kind of pain and neither would I. Delilah's wound was cleaned with wound cleanser and antibacterial cream for several days, and when it became sadly clear that her wound wasn't healing on it's own, and Ms. Verdick still refused to send her to see her veternarian, she was taken to Katrina's veternarian for further care.
Katrina never asked for cash anything, even prior to taking Delilah to the veternarian. In fact, she only asked Ms. Verdick to call her own veternarian and have them see Delilah and take care of her injuries, which she ultimately refused to do. After we presented Ms. Verdick with the veternarian bill, which you say was what she wanted, she is the one who involved a lawyer, still refused to pay, and forced Katrina to go to the courts to try and get this settled.
As for your accusations of Katrina wearing a skimpy blouse, what does that have to do with her dog getting injured by your business? As for the "employee" who "nicked" Delilah, it is your responsibility as an owner to hire experienced, professional groomers, and you are still responsible for injuries caused by them as the owner of the business.
If my claims in the report have caused others to take note, or write in, as one did, to agree with and back up Ms. Verdicks bad treatment of her customers, then that is great. I also told several aquaintances who are fellow dog owners about what happened to Katrina and Delilah and they have made the choice to take their business elsewhere, as is their perogative and mine. Certainly as Ms. Verdick treats her customers in the manner described by the gentleman who wrote a response to my original report, and as witnessed by myself and Katrina, she is chasing off plenty of business on her own. My advice to you sir, is to get properly licensed for the business you are running as well as the "proffessional" grooming offered by Ms. Verdick, keep your equipment clean, and send Ms. Verdick to Anger Management Counseling if you hope to maintain a business in good standing with the community. So far, there have been two people who have come forward in all of this to state their own mistreatment at the hands of your business partner, and even another dog that was injured during a "professional" grooming session at Simbah's Dog House. That poor woman's dog took two months to heal properly from the "nick" it received, even after the owner took it promptly to the very same veternarian we did. I stated the outcome as I though it stood on 11/29/05 of this report, but see that you are choosing to keep it going. Therefore, as is my right, I will respond to any rebuttals you may write, and continue to encourage anyone who has experienced or witnessed customers being treated badly to reply to my original report, or to write their own.

I am the Manager and part owner of said company in question. The person filing this complaint, "Melissa", is not the owner of the poodle named Ms. Dililah. A woman named Katrina is the owner of Ms. Dililah. Ms. Dililah has been coming to the shop since it opened (1 1/2 yrs. ago), and everytime the dog has been brought to us for grooming it would be in 4-6 month intervals (a poodle needs to be groomed at least once every 6-8 weeks), the dog would be extremely matted to the skin (an indication that it never was brushed), Ms. Dililah would always be covered in her own feces imbedded in her matted hair. Furthermore, Katrina was always given a 25% discount on a $35 quote and that was never enough. She always tried to ask for more discounts and when one employee would remind her that she's already receiving a 25% discount she would try to play on another employee asking for more discounts. She wanted ribbons in her hair. Then she wanted a scarf for the neck. All of which was complimentory. She called one day before an appointment and I answered, and when she arrived she was dressed in a blouse that if it would have been any skimpier she might get a indecent exposure citation, she was trying to play her femininity on me to get a dog grooming for nothing. The dog was nicked by clippers by an employee that is no longer here and Sara is receiving the blunt of it all. When a dog is so matted is it difficult to groom and the best of groomers can nick a dog. The day that this happened we made Katrina pay for the grooming and then told her to take the dog to a vet and bring us the bill. She waited almost 10 days before the dog went to the vet. She wanted money instead of sending us the vet bill. I saw a scab form on that dog and I believe Katrina ripped off the scab prior to taking that photo of the dog. In the end the owner of the dog not only received a refund on the grooming, a paid vet bill and we paid her court fees and she was suppose to cease and dismiss this. Now what is Melissa doing trying to slander, libel, and hurt my business? It is not Melissa's dog.

I have in the past been a customer at Simbah's Dog house and have seen others being treated poorly by Ms. Verdick and frequently uses the phrase "get out of my store". I have also heard the way she bad mouths people she has had problems with. Whether they were small or large, there is no in between with her. She's either sociable, or mean and nasty. She feels she's always in the right and is unable to admit when she's wrong, as in this case. I'm sorry this happened to Dililah, and I'm glad you followed through and made sure she paid for her unprofessionalism. I can imagine how she acted toward you because just recently she spoke to me the same way about something that was not even my fault - I was to be the messenger I guess. Needless to say, I will not be going back to Simbah's Dog House and I urge anyone else in the area not to go there either. She does not deserve to have her own business and especially not as a customer service provider.

DELILAH IS DOING JUST FINE NOW. HER OWNER FILED FOR A SMALL CLAIMS COURT DATE AND SIMBAH'S DOG HOUSE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DATE. WITHIN DAYS, SARA VERDICK HAD HER "LAWYER" MAIL DELILAH'S OWNER A CHECK FOR THE VET BILL AND REFUND THE GROOMING FEE. A FEW DAYS LATER, MS. VERDICK'S LAWYER ALSO SENT A CHECK FOR THE COURT FILING FEE. IT ALL WORKED OUT IN THE END.

What about the dog?? That does NOT look painless!

What about the dog?? That does NOT look painless!

You say that care was delayed because the shop owner originally said they would pay for their vet. Yet in your post you say the groomer made the injury seem minor. After three days, the dog owner brings the pup to you, not a vet. At this point the groomer yells and screams. It is now obvious that she will not pay for any vet bills willingly. Does your neighbor take the dog to the vet then? No, she waits a few more days and instead of a vet, she goes back to the groomer. If my dog had a wound that looked like these pictures, I would be at the vet immediately, not at my neighbor's house. I would worry about going after the groomer later. With pictures and vet bills/reports, a solid small claims case could be made. I state again that lack of care may have aggravated this injury. If the dog's owner cannot come up with $50 for a vet to take care of the injury, how does she afford the annual shots, heartworm preventative, flea products, etc?

Sara Verdick, at first stated she would pay for Delilah to go see her own veternarian and even wrote the veternarian's office address and name on a piece of paper, but, Sara Verdick reneged, thus causing the delay in treatment.

Sara Verdick, at first stated she would pay for Delilah to go see her own veternarian and even wrote the veternarian's office address and name on a piece of paper, but later reneged, thus causing the delay in treatment.

I am definitely not excusing the behavior of the groomer. She should pay the cost of the vet and well as refund the grooming fee. I can only wonder if perhaps the delay in taking the dog to the vet caused the infection or aggravated it. It seems like the owner was trying to save a few bucks and delayed getting the dog treatment. From the tone of your report it sounds like the dog doesn't even have a regular vet. I wonder why a responsible person would spend $30 on grooming and then skimp on medical care.

The vet bill only came to $46.50 and the cost of the grooming session was $30.00. This is all the owner of Dililah is requesting from Ms. Sara Verdick, owner of Simbah's Dog House (the person who injured Dililah), her money back for a grooming session in which her dog was injured and given an infection from poorly sanitized clippers, and the money for the veterinarian visit and medication required to help Dililah heal. Ms. Verdick was presented with a copy of the bill and still refuses to pay Dililah's owner back for the costs she incurred as a result of Ms. Verdick's negligence and unsanitary equipment.