I am appalled that this employee would take photos of my pet, who is now deceased, and use her images to write a false narrative about being "cheap", "getting mad after denying my pets proper care", and "expecting cheap medical attention and prescriptions". At no point did we have any financial issues with regards to her treatment, expect cheap treatment or prescriptions (she was never prescribed anything) and the only instance in which either of us could have been perceived as being "mad" was when my husband opted to leave the room during her euthanasia as he was upset about the situation and frustrated that we were losing our much loved pet, but he at no point directed his frustration towards any employees or had any grievances with anything to do with the clinic. This false narrative accompanied by photos of my now deceased pet seems extremely unethical and has been incredibly distressing towards us, and we feel as though this is a complete breach of our rights as a consumer of the clinic's services as well as a defamation against our character considering this review may be seen by people who are familiar with us and recognize us by our cat's very unique look, as she had an active online presence, was seen in advertisements for my from-home business, and I am active within local groups pertaining to cats and her particular breed.
What is also extremely important and worrisome to me is the fact that she repeatedly uses the word  "cheap" when talking about Vanguard Veterinary Clinic and says that we brought her there because we're "cheap", which naturally has me questioning whether we were really offered the best care for Isis and provided all the options available rather than just the "cheap" options, and whether she was given cheaper medication while under their care rather than better, higher value medication that may have been offered by other clinics. It also raises the question of whether us euthanizing her was the best course of action, or whether that was the only suggestion because the clinic viewed us as "cheap" so they didn't feel there was any point in offering us pricier medical care that would have worked for her as they didn't think we would be willing to pay for it.
I am also shocked that an employee would write a review for their place of work as this is against the law (15 USC 45b: Consumer Review Protection, (a) 1, "using unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.").
I am disappointed in Julia Galvan's conduct and I am hoping that the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and the Vanguard Veterinary Clinic take appropriate action to rectify this situation.