| Complaint: | Complaint 22-90 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Kimberley Shaird |
| Premises: | Augusta Ranch Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 22-89 |
This complaint pertains to 22-89 but relates to Shaird's involvement in the events. The text of the complaint is the same.
Shaird's response states that she saw the dog for a stuck penis and decreased appetite (compare to the response on 22-89 where it sounded like the complainants never called back). Shaird and the vet tech suspected the dog may be having a food aversion because of meloxidyl being put into the food. She explained that the complainant's wife (who brought the dog in) did the right thing and that stuck penises are a medical emergency. Because of the nature of the visit, she believed the urine sample was related to the penis, noting that it was normal. She gave recommendations on how to feed the dog to deal with the food aversion and also relayed that the pending Valley Fever test results would be sent over when they came in.
The report says the complainant was noticed but could not be reached. The address is redacted so we don't know if the letter went to the in-state address or a possible out-of-state address, particularly given hints that they're part-year residents. (In a different case, a complainant in an address protection program never received notices until after the meetings had already occurred because of mail forwarding, so who knows.)
The Investigative Committee said they understood why the complaint was filed against Shaird because the complainant's wife had taken the dog to Shaird (which seems obvious?). They noted that Shaird took care of the paraphimosis (stuck penis) and discussed the x-ray results; the clinic is also said to followed up and been told with the complainant's wife who said the dog was eating well and eventually reported the dog as being back to normal. (On the other hand, as the complainant wasn't present for the investigation, we're only getting one side of that.)
The report says the complainant was noticed but could not be reached. The address is redacted so we don't know if the letter went to the in-state address or a possible out-of-state address, particularly given hints that they're part-year residents. (In a different case, a complainant in an address protection program never received notices until after the meetings had already occurred because of mail forwarding, so who knows.)
| Source: | July 7, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Kimberley Shaird | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Steven Seiler | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Craig Nausley |
| Seconded By: | Jim Loughead |
| 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 |
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.