| Complaint: | Complaint 18-102 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Heather Hendricks |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Chandler |
The complainant's dog was seen by Hendricks for rectal prolapse. The complainant says it was pretty bad and Hendricks was unsure she would be able to reduce it. She says Hendricks suggested surgery, but she didn't have the money and asked about euthanasia. Hendricks said she could keep the dog overnight at the hospital for free and would "see what she could do." The complainant was approved for $2000 by CareCredit and later called for an update on her dog as she hadn't heard anything. Hendricks told her that a secretary at 1st Pet would be happy to take her dog off her hands and pay for the surgery itself. The complainant was upset and asked how much the surgery would be and Hendricks said she wouldn't know until their surgeon showed up. The next morning 1st Pet stated that the dog had a necrotic bowel and needed surgery immediately, yet when asked when the surgeon would get there, the complainant says she was told nobody knew. The dog was there all day waiting for the surgeon and the complainant had some interesting discussions with the hospital manager, being told that her total was only at about $500 and not accruing additional charges. Finally, she spoke with the surgeon, Guastella, who stated that the dog didn't need a surgery at all and merely needed reduction under anesthesia. This was estimated to a total of $2000 including the $500 already charged. A larger amount was later charged, and the complainant was briefly scared that again they were going to come for her dog. She believes that 1st Pet is only interested in money and shocked by their care and treatment (with the exception of Guastella).
Hendricks' response details the medical side of things and also notes that perhaps suggesting surrendering the dog to a coworker may have been premature in this instance. She states she did not mean to cause any distress. She notes that Kafer, another doctor, also handled some of the care for the dog. According to Hendricks, Guastella had to attempt the manual reduction twice, with the second one being performed under anesthesia. Hendricks says that the complainant seemed happy with her experience. She also states that she attempted to try and keep costs as low as possible, including giving some items as freebies.
The Investigative Committee said that they had no concerns that would constitute a violation. They also said that the euthanasia would have occurred because the complainant didn't have enough money, so the staff offering to take the dog off her hands were just trying to save the dog's life. (It does not appear that the bigger issues brought up by the complainant were discussed.)
| Source: | August 8, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Heather Hendricks | 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.