| Complaint: | Complaint 18-118 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Karen Claus |
| Premises: | McClintock Animal Care Center |
The complainant writes that she took her dog to McClintock Animal Care for a dental. She says that the dog came back with a scar and burns on his left side from a water blanket used to heat the dog during the dental. She says the dog was severely dehydrated and in considerable pain. She talked to Claus, the veterinarian who did the dental, who apparently told her she didn't know how it happened but that they used an old water blanket and had subsequently thrown it away. The complainant says that the clinic "did the right thing" by reimbursing her for the dental, caring for the wound, and paying for a specialist referral. However, she feels they almost killed her dog and that she no longer has any trust in a clinic she'd been going to for 9 years.
Claus states in her response that the clinic doesn't use electric heating pads. She used a Gaymar T/Pump to circulate water through a water heating pad covered by a towel, and other monitoring was from the good people at SurgiVet. The dog was rolled over several times and also treated to warm towels. She says that after going home the dog was reported to not be doing as well as expected. During follow-up visits suspicion shifted from a potential drug reaction, infection from subcutaneous fluids, and so on, to a diagnosis of thermal burns. Claus and colleagues spoke with the clinic owner and they concluded the injuries to the dog were more than likely something that happened during the dental, so they decided they would cover expenses related to treatment. The dog was having problems so one of the staff that had previously been a petsitter for the dog offered to watch the dog at night and bring the dog in each day for treatment (the clinic does not offer 24-hour care). She also suggested a referral to Monarski at VCA ARECA but the complainant chose to see Waldo at 1st Pet. She also says that the complainant kept bringing both the dog in question and her other dogs to the clinic so she's unsure when or why the complainant stopped "trusting" the clinic.
The Investigative Committee notes that circulating water blankets are considered the standard of care. They also note that the clinic didn't knowingly use a water blanket that would injure the dog and that the clinic "went above and beyond" in the care and treatment of the wounds. Therefore, they reasoned, the clinic did nothing wrong.
| Source: | September 9, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Karen Claus | Respondent |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Nay |
| Nikki Frost | Nay |
| 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.