Not resolved
Additional Fees
Customer service
Diversity of Products or Services
Price Affordability
Product or Service Quality
Value for money

Update by user Sep 02, 2017

This writer agreed not to post this information

Update by user Jul 18, 2016

Dr. Soyfer's office/Fairfax Smiles is completely unprofessional.

Dr. Soyfer's response to my complaints is to launch a character assignation on me. That is completely inappropriate, and unprofessional. Licensed medical practitioners are held to a higher standard when working with the public.

It is always the responsibility of the licensed professional to do the right thing. Dr. Soyfer's office has absolutely NO customer service problem resolution skills. If he had, maybe I would not have filed any formal complaints with his state regulatory board.

However, considering how Dr. Soyfer has maliciously attacked me, I had no choice. Now Case #171672 will forever be registered on his license, that is assuming he has a license. Case #171672 could be the case that ends his career if the board revokes his license.

All of this could have been prevented with a little customer care.

Attacking me online only further proves how unprofessional Dr. Soyfer/Fairfax Smiles is.

Update by user Jul 09, 2016

Ms. Amanda "Leah" Smith and Dr.

Vladimir Soyfer D.M.D committed fraud when they created a false document for me to sign when I requested a medical records release form.

Forging all other writings, including falsely obtaining someone’s signature for the purpose of defrauding that or another person, is a Class 5 felony, which incurs a fine of up to $2,500, up to one year in jail, or both; or between one and ten years in prison. (Va. Ann.

Code § 18.2-172.)

I am still waiting for Ms. Smith to realize she has committed a crime, and that she should RUN away from Dr. Soyfer. But she is loyal to a fault, so I will just wait for the Distict Attorney to charge her.

I wonder how she is going to provide for her children with a felony on her record. She's not too smart...

Update by user Jul 01, 2016

On June 27, 2016, I received a letter Human Services informing me of the from The Department of Health and resolution to my complaint that Dr. Soyfer did not state in his medical records that no dental dam was used during an endodontic procedure performed on me on 5/26/2015.

The DHHS solution was to offer Dr. Soyfer's office technical assistance in becoming compliant with my request to amend my medical record to show that no dental dam was used. Since that time, I have re-requested a copy of my medical records (through my attorney) from Dr. Soyfer's office to ensure that my records have been amended to my satisfaction.

If the record dated 5/26/2015 still does not indicate that no dental dam was used, I will re-file another complaint with The DHHS, as mentioned in their letter to me if they receive another complaint regarding non-compliance from Dr. Soyfer's office, they will investigate. I am attaching the letter.

Do NOT let Dr. Soyfer lie on your medical record!

Update by user Jun 27, 2016

From March, 2016 to June, 2016, I have had 90 communications with the investigator with VBOD. Wow!

Get ready Fairfax Smiles. I'm FINALLY going to get some resolution.

Original review posted by user Jun 17, 2016

I had an unfortunate incident with Dr. Soyfer while he was performing a root canal procedure on me. He either didn't know he was supposed to be using a dental dam, or he neglected to use on, either way what I am getting at is that he failed to to follow the recommended standard-of-care guidelines established by the ADA and dropped an endofile down my throat. I had to go to the ER and have the file retrieved via endoscope.

In addition, all of the root canal procedures he did on me failed. His instruments were not powerful enough to drill past obstructed root canals. Dr. Soyer used a hand-held drill as opposed to the electric drills that Endodontists use. Most of the root canals Dr. Soyfer performed on me were incomplete, meaning that he wasn't effective in treating the pathology at the tip of my root canal, and I still expereinced pain in the teeth I thought he had successfully treated. Consequently, I am having to have all the work that Dr. Soyfer did, redone by an Endodontist. I have to ruin all of my ceramic crowns which cost $2,500 each so the canal can be re-treated which costs 2k to be treated properly by an Endodontist. So I am paying twice for work that should have been done correctly the first time.

Dr. Soyfer also slashed my gums with the anaesthetic needle. He didn't place the anaesthesia in the correct spot in my mouth, so it took about 8 injections to get me numb, and afterwards I was looking in my mouth, and my gums were very red and swollen. I also remember seeing a bunch of bone, blood, and tissue go into the suction tube when he was doing a root canal procedure on me, which didn't happen when I saw the Endodontist, who performed the same procedure on other teeth, only correctly and pain free.

In addition, Dr. Soyfer didn't get the color of my central incisor correct, so now it looks bad next to all my other teeth because it is too yellow. Terrible experience!

jrabell56 wrote the review because of bad quality at Fairfax Smiles and attached photo s. Reviewer claimed that he or she lost $5000 and wants Fairfax Smiles to issue a full refund.

The author asks this business to immediately contact him/ her to briefly discuss his/ her negative experience with the company.

We collected other reviews about products and/or services offered by Fairfax Smiles and fairfax smiles dentistry doctor for you to read. This information may help you with your purchase decision.

Do You Have Something To Say ?

Write a review


Terms of Service
Post Comment
Sterling, Virginia, United States #1186051

1. Respondeat Superior (Let the master answer)


What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior?

The doctrine of respondeat superior is firmly grounded in Virginia common law. Over 80 years ago, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated the following in Davis v. Merrill, 133 Va.

69, 112 S.E. 628 (1922):

If a person, acting for himself, willfully and maliciously inflict an injury upon another, he is liable in damages for such injury. And there is no reason why a master should be permitted to turn his business over to servants who have no regard for the public welfare and thereby escape the responsibility which he would otherwise have to bear. It is manifestly right and just that both corporations and individuals be required to answer in damages for wanton and malicious assaults inflicted upon others by their servants, while acting within the scope of the servant’s employment duty, and it matters not whether the act of the servant is due to lack of judgment, the infirmity of temper, or the influence of passion, or that the servant goes beyond his strict line of duty and authority in inflicting such injury…

To recover against an employer under respondeat superior, the plaintiff must 1) establish the existence of a employer-employee relationship, 2) that the employee was conducting his employer’s business at the time of the commission of the tort, and 3) the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.

Master Auto Serv. Corp. v. Bowden, 179 Va.

507, 510, 19 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1942).

While the plaintiff carries the burden of proof, this burden shifts to the employer once the plaintiff establishes an employer-employee relationship because “Virginia courts have consistently held that proof of the employment relationship creates a prima facia rebuttable presumption of the employer’s liability. Thus, when an employer-employee relationship has been establish, the burden is on the employer to prove that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the act complained of, and if the evidence leaves the question in doubt it becomes an issue to be determined by the jury.” Gina Chin & Assocs., Inc. v.

First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533, 542, 537 S.E.2d 573, 577 (2000). As a general rule, “an act is within the scope of employment if (1) it was expressly or impliedly directed by the employer, or is naturally incident to the business, and (2) it was performed, although mistakenly or ill-advised, with the intent to further the employer’s interest, or from some impulse or emotion that was the natural consequence of an attempt to do the employer’s business…. Id.

at 541, 537 S.E.2d at 577. Something to think about for Dr.

Soyfer AND Ms. Leah Smith


Make sure all of your entries are objective in nature. Only record what happened; not what you think is okay.

Confine your comments to necessary information about the patient’s treatment. Do not make unnecessary negative comments. A patient has a right to request to see their record (including “personal notes” you may keep in a separate chart), and should the record appear in a court case, disparaging remarks could alienate the judge and/or the jury.

I wonder what a jury would think about Ms. Smith's entries...She made comments about my mental stability.


What makes you think this "Julie Abell's" future dentist will ever see your comment?....What about this review is false, and how would you know?

Information shared between a patient and a doctor is strictly confidential, did you ever think this doctor might have been having an affair with her, and didn't tell you because he didn't want you to think bad things about him?

Why are you so angry?

What in your Narcissistic world makes you think that you matter to her?

If I were you, I would begin looking for a new job because after the dental board hearing, Dr. Soyfer will not have a license anymore.

to Anonymous Sterling, Virginia, United States #1177956

Everytime Fairfax Smiles writes more negative comments about me, I send another complaint to the Dental Board. I just sent in another formal complaint to their investigator regarding the psychotherapy note his unlicensed assistant wrote in my chart AND regarding the dental endofile that Dr.

Soyfer broke off in tooth #30. I am still debating whether or not I want to file a complaint regarding tooth #11 with its open margin in which a cavity has now formed.

Keep it coming Fairfax Smiles, I will keep adding to the complaints and we will have a very long dental board hearing. Enjoy!

You May Also Like