| Complaint: | Complaint 18-107 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | James Crawford |
| Premises: | Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center |
The complainant brought her dog to the hospital for a laryngeal spasm and was seen by Crawford. She says that she had been to the hospital twice with the same condition already and made a full recovery, but this time the treatment was different and her dog died. This time she says she waited for 40 minutes to see a vet tech and when she requested oxygen as before, she was told that her dog wasn't interested in oxygen. Apparently 15 minutes later Crawford told her that the oxygen wasn't making a difference and they didn't have enough vet techs at the clinic to keep administering oxygen to her dog. She also learned that the dog was only on flow-by oxygen rather than using a mask. She also says that rather than using intravenous acepromazine Crawford only gave a low dose injection. She eventually discharged the dog for euthanasia and requested that a catheter be added. She was shocked to learn the dog was heavily sedated at her request when she did not request that. She specifically says that whoever said that lied.
Crawford's response admits that the dog's history shows she recovered during a previous visit to the emergency service but claims the dog was given flow-by oxygen on that occasion as well. He also claims that he actually did give an acepromazine IV but notes that one set of records has a dosage of 0.01mL rather than 0.02mL and that the difference is likely a typographical error. Crawford says that they eventually placed the dog in an oxygen kennel and offered continued hospitalization. The complainant was unsure regarding continued hospitalization, so Crawford recommended euthanasia if the dog was to be discharged. He also claims that the complainant asked them to heavily sedate the dog and place a catheter in preparation for in-home euthanasia. He said that they could not insert the catheter but did heavily sedate the dog as he claims she requested, also ensuring she signed an Against Medical Advice form.
The Investigative Committee said that the dog presented on emergency, Crawford provided adequate treatment, and "the dog did not approve." They also say that further treatment was declined by the complainant, who took the dog home for euthanasia. The discrepancy between what the complainant was allegedly told regarding treatment and what was reported post facto is not discussed.
| Source: | September 9, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| James Crawford | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| 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.