| Complaint: | Complaint 18-119 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Pamela Ford |
| Premises: | Arizona Animal Wellness Center |
The complaint in this case appears to also be an insurance claim drafted by the complainants' attorney, Andrea Simbro, and sent to Zurich American. It appears that the complainants' dog had a hip surgery by Lirtzman and then left the dog in Ford's care while they went on a big vacation out of the country. When they got back, they found that the dog was in pre-surgery condition and blame Ford for not following the copious post-discharge instructions for the dog while in her care. The letter also states that the dog had to have a second surgery, provided by Lirtzman for free. The complainants also want money: $20000 in lost wages for the time taken to care for the dog, a refund of what they paid to board the dog, reimbursement of the attorney fees incurred in trying to get the money, and a written promise from Ford to cover any future medical expenses related to treatment of the dog's hip.
Ford's response states that the complainants have been clients of the clinic since 2005 and that they've seen the dog in question since 2017. She claims that orthopedic issues the clinic found led them to recommend a referral to Lirtzman in the first place. According to Ford's response they were left out of the loop regarding much of the interaction with Lirtzman and strongly recommended against medical boarding of the dog after discharge. She states that she told the complainants that in-home boarding in the normal environment would be ideal but relented when learning that the complainants apparently had no other options. She says the dog did well for the first 13 days but became bored and the sedatives did not work as well as the dog continued to recover from surgery. She noticed the dog could no longer stand on the leg in question during an exam and contacted Lirtzman. She was unable to reach the complainants, who were on a cruise, but did coordinate a new surgery date with Lirtzman. She states that the situation with the complainants deteriorated markedly after they returned from the cruise and that the complainants started to make a big move for money. At that point she states that she directed all future contact to PLIT (AVMA PLIT is the AVMA's line of professional liability insurance products.).
The Investigative Committee said that it was an unfortunate situation and that Lirtzman claimed the dog was more likely to suffer complications anyway. They also note that Ford informed the complainants that the dog would be better served at home but followed the post-discharge instructions and coordinated care.
| Source: | October 10, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Pamela Ford | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Recused |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.