| Complaint: | Complaint 22-91 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Melvin Paquin |
| Premises: | Animal Medical Center of Surprise |
The complainants brought their dog to Paquin for a teeth cleaning. They say that they explicitly told a vet tech not once but twice that they wanted to be called prior to having any teeth pulled on their dog. One of the complainants specifically notes that there were two different options on the paper: consent up to a certain number of pulled teeth with an estimate, or requesting a call to confirm on the procedure recommended and associated costs. The veterinarian who was going to do the procedure (Paquin) was also told to confirm before pulling teeth according to the complainant. Both complainants were concerned about pulling teeth because chewing was one of the dog's favorite activities.
The complainants didn't get an update about their dog until late in the day because of an emergency at the clinic (a dog had been brought in after being kicked by a horse). They were told the dog was doing well after the dental. They called back to ask about the dental x-rays and were told that eight teeth had been removed. The complainant's husband said that they didn't give consent and were told that a tech would call them back. The complainant then called the clinic and doesn't appear to be happy that her instructions were ignored. Not one bit.
Paquin's response begins with an explanation of their procedures. Among other information he notes that the night before a dental his clinic sends out an email informing pet owners that the extent of dental problems will be unknown until x-rays taken during the dental. It also explains that consent is required to perform extractions or other procedures, and he notes that they prefer owners to approve extractions up to a certain amount to save time. If they don't want that, then they have to explicitly decline areas of extractions on the plan, at which time they'll call and ask the owner. (It's too bad we don't get to see the form; he sent one but the board must not consider it part of the response.)
Paquin also provides a timeline stating that the complainant is lying about what she said to him about consent, also noting that the complainant signed a treatment plan consenting for up to six extractions with "a financial buffer" (which apparently included the two extra teeth for a total of eight). He relates that once the complainant found out about the extractions, she called up the clinic and used nasty words, threatening them with lawyers and the vet board. He also blames the complainant for his staff being frustrated. According to him the clinic was under heavy load but they went ahead with the dental for the complainant's wishes, stating that the rest of the clinic was running late now in an "extremely stressful environment." (Sounds like a safe place to be doing medical procedures, doesn't it?) He says that they didn't make the complainant pay for the dentals to avoid further confrontation and get them out of the clinic.
The Investigative Committee said that the complainant admitted she signed a form saying they could take out up to six teeth. (Again, since we don't get to see the form, we don't get the whole story about why she might have misunderstood the full implications; she was asking to be called, so one wonders why they let the form itself ride.) They also blame the staff member for not relaying the request to Paquin, yet the complainant says she mentioned this to Paquin herself when he briefly popped in. The Committee reassures us that it's hard to take out teeth so veterinarians wouldn never do it just for the money; they also don't like that the consent form would let someone decline extraction of diseased teeth.
Sadly, this is a common theme in veterinary complaints; people don't understand the full implications of what they're signing and then get a toothless pet back from the vet. The Investigative Committee members also tend to be veritable tooth fairies themselves; many of the writeups continually state that the veterinarians would never remove healthy teeth, and there seems to be no appetite by the board to propose any administrative rules to require more informed consent.
Paquin, according to his bio at the Animal Medical Center of Surprise, was once an investigator for the veterinary board.
| Source: | July 7, 2022 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Melvin Paquin | Respondent |
| 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: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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.