| Complaint: | Complaint 18-100 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Christopher Tobe |
| Premises: | Fountain Hills Veterinary Hospital |
The complainant dropped her dog off at the clinic for a dental that morning. About three hours later she says that she got a call from Tobe telling her that her dog was in cardiac arrest. Her husband went there first and then she was called to come down too. Tobe did not have a defibrillator on site but started calling around other clinics in the area to see if they did. The complainant says that the dog had other anesthetic procedures there in the past with no ill effects and that all bloodwork was good. She also has several questions, including who administered the drugs, why Tobe was dressed in a wrinkled t-shirt and shorts rather than any kind of medical gear, whether or not the clinic should have had a defibrillator, and so on. She says she was told this was a routine procedure and would never have agreed if she knew her dog could have died.
Tobe's response begins with a rundown of the events leading up to the dental. He quotes verbatim from a legal waiver that states the procedure involves "some minimal risk" but "you will not be held liable in any manner whatsoever or under any circumstances in connection therewith as it is thoroughly understood that I assume all risks." He then gives a play-by-play of the events leading up to the dog going into arrest, CPR, a failed attempt to revive using an AED, and finally the dog dying. He also points that defibrillators are not required and that in his prior background in critical care he's never seen one used successfully. He states that he and the staff showed a lot of sympathy (some even cried!) and that they didn't charge for anything but the cremation. Tobe also mentions that the previous anesthetic procedures (that didn't kill the dog) were performed by another vet, Crowe, and were in his opinion substandard to the one he did (that did kill the dog). He says they're considering buying a defibrillator in the future and that it's a very difficult time in the hospital because the complainant's accusation of wrongdoing is very hurtful.
The Investigative Committee said it was unfortunate and that perhaps the dog had a bad reaction to the anesthetic. The complainant actually declined a necropsy but for some reason the Committee discusses that you need to hurry up on necropsies (even if the body is in the fridge) before diagnostic value is lost.
| Source: | August 8, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Christopher Tobe | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | 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.