| Complaint: | Complaint 22-53 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Kathleen Slocum |
| Premises: | Little Rascals Mobile Surgical Clinic |
| Related: | 22-54 |
The complainant's dog had a mobile veterinary service come by to do surgeries on her two dogs, one of whom previously had a spine stroke. Both dogs went in but one of them was kept behind because of issues coming out of anesthesia; the complainant was later notified that a second surgery had to be performed because of internal bleeding. The dog was eventually discharged from the mobile unit with an elevated heart rate, lethargy, and an inability to walk. She called Jenn, the only contact for the service, who asked her to get the dog to stand up (which she could, briefly).
The complainant finally rushed the dog to an ER where the dog died from internal bleeding. She later learned from Jenn that there were blood pressure problems with the dog even prior to surgery, so she wonders why they even went ahead with it; she also has concerns about the quality of the information relayed from the mobile clinic, and she's not even sure what they did to her dog aside from the invoice.
Slocum's response is interesting. She states that the dog was opened up and recovery from the first surgery was normal. The dog remained lethargic so they drew a sample from the dog's side and found fluid with blood in it. They did a second surgery to explore and found blood in the abdomen along with small clots, but no source of the bleeding, so they patched the dog back up again. She states that they told the complainant to take the dog to a full-service veterinarian for the bleeding, encouraging the complainant to take the dog to an emergency clinic multiple times. She states that she obtained records from Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic indicating the dog likely had a clotting disorder.
Slocum states that the complainant turned down all pre-operative lab work. She also states that the complainant's claim about the dog's blood pressure being erratic was false; such a statement would never have been made as her mobile clinic has no equipment to check a dog's blood pressure. She also contests the complainant's contention that nobody told her the dog wasn't doing well, saying the complainant contradicts herself by earlier stating that she was told the dog wasn't coming out of anesthesia (the complainant actually appears to have been claiming that the full picture wasn't provided until the dog is in the ER).
The Investigative Committee said that the complainant admitted she was suggested to go to an emergency facility, but there were serious problems with the communication. They had concerns that Slocum didn't immediately tell the complainant to take the dog to an emergency facility, nor did she apparently review video of the dog at home that might have suggested a serious problem. They had concerns that decisions about the dog were being made by the staff. Two violations were found, both of which were thrown out by the board; they sent a Letter of Concern instead.
| Source: | April 4, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kathleen Slocum | 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 by not calling the pet. owner prior to the second surgery; not directly communicating to the pet owner after discharge when the pet owner was. expressing concerns with the dog's condition (all communication took place with technical staff), and not contacting the pet owner after the dog passed away. | |
| ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (3) failure to refer the dog immediately after the second surgery to an emergency 24-hour facility for continued care and monitoring due to the dog requiring a second surgery and the source of bleeding was not identified. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Craig Nausley |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kathleen Slocum | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Melissa Thompson |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Nay |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Nay |
| Jim Loughead | Absent |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| Robyn Jaynes | Nay |
| 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 by not calling the pet owner prior to the second surgery, not directly communicating to the pet owner after discharge when the pet owner was expressing concerns with the dog's condition (all communication took place with technical staff), and not contacting the pet owner after the dog passed away. | |
| Result: | Failed |
| Source: | June 6, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kathleen Slocum | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Absent |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
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.