| Complaint: | Complaint 22-07 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Michael Walker |
| Premises: | Bradshaw Mountain Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 22-06 |
This complaint follows from 22-06 and pertains to Walker, the veterinarian who removed a different mass than the complainants were expecting.
Walker's response states that the dog was dropped off for surgery and that the admission was handled by a surgical technician somewhat new to the job. Upon actually looking at the dog he found that there were two masses that could be of concern; he felt that the mass on the chest was likely to be a lipoma but had more serious concerns for the mass on the leg. He questioned the technician as to what mass should be removed as the form he was given was ambiguous; the technician allegedly replied that the owners only wanted one mass removed but she didn't know which one.
Reviewing the medical records, he didn't find the tumor mentioned in the records, but felt based on the other information the tumor he had pinpointed was the tumor to cut out. He notes that he could not return the complainants' subsequent call as he was in emergency surgery to stitch up a dog's intestines; he relayed his apologies to the receptionist and just forgot to ever call the complainants back because the request was lost in paperwork and the daily grind of running a veterinary clinic. He concedes that communications errors did happen and could have been handled better, but disputes that it's part of a scam; he says he'd have done a second surgery for free. It also appears that he eventually did call back the complainants and talk to them after they brought the dog in for suture removal.
The Investigative Committee found a violation to provide courteous communications. They believed that there were many opportunities to have spoken with the complainants, either calling them when there was confusion about the mass to remove or to return their call after discharge. The board sentenced him to take a three-hour class in client communication. (It's curious that in 22-06 they found that Runge clearly specified the mass to remove in her notes, yet Walker seems to suggest the records weren't clear enough to identify what he was supposed to cut on without some intuition; perhaps Runge's records were clearer with the benefit of hindsight, but we don't get to see those and we'll never know.)
This isn't the only time something like this shows up in the records. At a minimum there are 18-01, 21-24/21-25, and 21-90 that come to mind.
| Source: | January 1, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Michael Walker | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to show respect to the animal owner through courteous verbal interchange by not calling them prior to surgery to ensure the correct mass was removed from the dog; not speaking to the pet owner when he returned that day with concerns the wrong mass was removed; and did not return calls or speak to the pet owner at a recheck appointment to follow up with their concerns. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Recused |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Recused |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | Order 22007 (March 3, 2022) |
|---|---|
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to show respect to the animal owner through courteous verbal interchange by not calling them prior to surgery to ensure the correct mass was removed from the dog; not speaking to the pet owner when he returned that day with concerns the wrong mass was removed; and did not return calls or soeak to the pet owner at a recheck appointment to follow up with their concerns. | |
| Penalties: | |
| Probation (1 year) | |
| Continuing education (3 hours in client communications) | |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.