I have been a patient of this practice for several years, but my confidence in Dr. Leo Kim and this office has declined to the point where I can no longer trust the care being provided. During my most recent visit, I repeatedly explained that I was experiencing significant discomfort and a worsening quality of life due to a severe traumatic eye injury and its long‑term complications. Instead of listening, Dr. Kim dismissed my concerns entirely. He made a deeply inappropriate comment, telling me directly that he has six‑year‑old patients who “do not complain as much as I do.” For a physician to compare a complex, traumatic adult injury to a child’s experience is not only highly unprofessional — it deliberately minimizes and insults the seriousness of the condition I was trying to discuss. Another longstanding issue is the way this office manages scheduling. Appointments are consistently rushed because they routinely overbook far beyond what the schedule can reasonably accommodate. Even when appointments are made six months in advance, it is common to receive a call less than a week before the visit informing you that it must be rescheduled due to “too many patients booked for the same day and time.” And if your appointment isn’t canceled, you should expect to wait two hours or more in the waiting room before being seen. This pattern shows a clear lack of respect for patients’ time, work schedules, and medical needs, and it directly contributes to the rushed, impersonal nature of the visits themselves. What is even more concerning is the documentation. After reviewing the clinical note, I found major discrepancies between what was said during the appointment and what was written in the Assessment and Plan. Dr. Kim repeatedly recommended enucleation during the visit and referred me to a specialist. Yet the official note stated that surgical intervention was not recommended. This is not a minor oversight — medical records directly influence specialist consultations, surgical planning, disability evaluations, and insurance determinations. Inaccurate documentation can materially harm a patient. Because of these repeated discrepancies, I strongly recommend that patients explicitly request to record their appointments with Dr. Kim—or bring a trusted witness—to ensure accuracy and protect themselves from future documentation issues. In Massachusetts, all parties must consent to a recording, but when trust in the medical record is compromised, patients must take active, transparent steps to safeguard their own care. I raised my concerns through the appropriate channels and ultimately filed a formal HIPAA amendment request. Unfortunately, communication from this office has been almost nonexistent. Phone calls go unreturned. Patient‑portal messages are ignored. Attempts to obtain clarification about the medical record require repeated follow‑ups. Once questions are raised about documentation accuracy, communication appears to stop entirely. Patients should not have to fight to correct their own medical records. They should not have to chase down basic communication. They should not have to worry that their appointment will be canceled at the last minute due to chronic overbooking. They should not have to sit in a waiting room for two hours or more just to be rushed through a visit. And they should not have to wonder whether what was documented matches what was actually said. Based on my experience, I strongly advise patients to carefully review every visit note and after‑visit summary rather than assuming they are accurate. For anyone who values precise documentation, transparency, accountability, and responsive communication, I cannot recommend this practice. Due to how profoundly dysfunctional this office is, I will be looking for medical care elsewhere.
