This complaint is actually a board-opened case related to findings from complaint 18-60. In that
case a dog with parvo was sent home without ever actually seeing a veterinarian and later died.
The attached complaint is actually the complaint from 18-60 and there doesn't appear to be any
other information with respect to what they're supposed to be investigating, but they manage to
make due.
Zayas' response gives her view of what happened that day. She says that a veterinary technician
informed her that there was a possible parvo puppy in the parking lot and went out to take a
look. She didn't want the dog coming into the clinic as it was very busy with patients at that
time. The parvo test came back positive and Zayas states that she came up with a treatment
plan with the technician. She states that she strongly emphasized that in-hospital care would
be preferred but could not personally speak to the pet's owners at that time because of the
crowd in the building. She went ahead and began putting things in motion with pharmacy but
somehow the chart managed to find its way to a dischargeable status, and therefore the dog and
its humans left without ever meeting a veterinarian. However, Zayas contends that while this is
a legal lapse, it did not affect quality of care given the level of involvement of the veterinary
technician in speaking with the clients in the parking lot.
The Investigative Committee said that Zayas' treatment recommendations were inadequate. They
also stated that if she was too busy she should have just sent the dog somewhere else. The
investigators voted to find violations. The board eventually issued a board order with a
single violation and fined Zayas $250.
ARS § 32-2232(25) Performing veterinary services without having a valid veterinarian client relationship
ARS § 32-2232 (26) Releasing, prescribing or dispensing any prescription drugs in the absence of a valid veterinarian client patient relationship
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures with respect to the failure to assess the needs of the patient and dispensing fluids and metronidazole at an inappropriate dose for the dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (25) Performing veterinary services without having a valid veterinarian client patient relationship.
Penalties:
Civil penalty ($250)
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.