I have been at doctor's
Is there any difference between these two sentences?
I have been at doctor's
I have been to doctor's
I would like to know the difference. Thank you.
15 Answers
This is probably just a typo, Nila, but these two sentences should be:
I have been at the doctor's.
I have been to the doctor's.
Of course the word 'office' does not need to stated but is implied by the context: 'I have been at the doctor's (office).
And I agree with Goyo, that in common usage these sayings are identical. There may be some technical reasons why one would be preferred over another.
For example, if I were to be asked "Where have you been?" my preferred answer would be "At the doctor's." This is because a person can be 'at' a place, not 'to' a place.
However if the question was "Where did you go?" my preferred answer would be "To the doctor's." This is because a person can go 'to' a place not 'at' a place.
Two of the replies in that thread are wrong. "in" (as opposed to "to") does not imply living somewhere. The distinction should have been drawn between "Have you been in London long?" and "Have you ever been in Lindon?" The latter (because of the presence of "ever" means "on some occasion" / "at some time". It could encompass living there but would be normally interpreted to mean "visited". The former (because of the absence of "ever" and [to a lesser extent] because of the presence of "long") could refer to living there but could equally apply to a question about the extent of ones visit (during a trip). For the former, more context would resolve the difference.
The only difference I can think of is that "I have been to the doctor's" could mean that you went there, turned around and came back without ever going in. "I have been at the doctor's" definitely means you stayed there at least a little while.
Another example:
"I have been to the park" I went there and came back, without necessarily going in.
"I have been at the park" I went there and stayed for a while.
I think most English speakers in the US use "at" and "to" interchangeably in this context so this is probably just "splitting hairs!"
It's the same thing, Nila.
One person would say it one way, and another person would say it the other way. The meaning is identical.
I would say "I have been at (or to) the doctor's.
I would probably use "at" to explain why I had been gone for some time, if, for example, someone asked me why I was gone for so long, but "to" if I was just explaining where I had been.
Hope that makes sense 
To and At are both acceptable; however, To gives more of a feeling of traveling to this place.
The article The is used in US English (I'm in the hospital, at the doctor's office, etc). It is not used in UK English (I'm in hospital, at doctor's office, etc).
After reading everyone's great insights I feal there is one important piece of information that has not been addressed. Simply put, "I have been at the doctor's." implies that you had been to a doctor's office but never had actually seen the doctor. "I have been to the doctor." implies that you went to see the doctor, himself. In days gone by it was possible to see a doctor and never visit his office. Now-a-days it is virtually impossible to visit a doctor without an office setting. I believe the two acceptable ways to say you have been in a doctor's office stems from this change in culture. At, therefore, implies a place or action...and to implies a person or very precise location.
yo era un doctor.
Have a look at the definition
Based on those, I don't have problem with saying I have been at the doctor's office It just a matter of what sounds better and to sounds better and it probably more correct in this instance.
I would also add that even though both are common, either phrase is somewhat incomplete.
I have been to the doctor's office.
I have been at the doctor's office.
"Office" completes the thought behind "doctor's", which is a possessive form. The thing that the doctor possesses is an office, which is where this person has been.
Everyone knows this by simply ending the sentence with "doctor's", however I suspect it's not good grammar, and ought to have the word "office" to complete the sentence. (Or some other appropriate word, such as "house" or "lake"... whatever the doctor may own that this person visited.)
Well, I was trying to guess something like this. There are some points in the forum that are not very clear for me. Perhaps, there some contradictions that do not let me know the exact answer. I would like you to enter this link, please.
I think there is a difference. I think that perhaps when you say "She has been at doctor's" she is not still at this place. But if you say " she has been to the doctor's" she is still there. Or was it the opposite?. I have heard something about that but I cannot remember what was.
I have been to the doctors. At 5pm I was at the docters. where is susan? She has gone to the doctors. Hope these three examples are helpful.
But if you say " she has been to the doctor's" she is still there.
I would say that in both cases, she is no longer at the doctor's. Saying "has been" to me implies that it is no longer true, it has happened, but is not currently happening. Unless... you were to say "She has been at the doctor's all day/since noon." or something like that stating clearly that the action is ongoing. So context could change this. "Where is she?" "She has been at the doctor's for three hours."
I also believe there is a difference. I think the difference lies in that it could be preferable to say one over the other in response to a question. Perhaps someone asks you, "where have you been?" You respond, "I have been at the doctor's office." Whereas it would be incorrect to say, "I have been to the doctor's office," as it implies that a different question was asked. For example, "have you done anything to take care of your cold?" "Yes, I have been to the doctor's office."
I hope this helps.
