| Complaint: | Complaint 18-14 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Maggie Jones |
| Premises: | Veterinary Specialty Center of Tucson |
| Related: | 18-15 |
The complainant took her tog to Veterinary Specialty Center's emergency services after he ate a lot of grass and vomited repeatedly. When introduced to Jones she mentioned that there was something, likely a blade of grass, stuck in his nose and mouth; she also said she thought this was why the dog wasn't eating or drinking, acting letargic, and unwell. Jones initially concurred but then came up with a new plan that of X-rays and blood tests, then discharged him with instructions to contact the hospital if there were breathing problems or nasal discharge. Both symptoms occurred and the dog continued to decline but the hospital told the complainant that there was nothing of concern; she also requested records but faced significant delays in receiving them. After going to two more veterinarians, one of them found found a blade of grass and removed it; the dog began to improve.
Jones' response states that she would have been happy to use CT or rhinoscopy to have found the blade of grass but that those aren't available on a same-day basis at the facility unless it's a real emergency. She also claims that the dog had been to the clinic before with a similar complaint and no blade of grass was found then either, so the assumption was that there wouldn't one there now. Jones argues that the main threat to the dog's health was not a potential blade of grass stuck in the mouth and/or nose, but rather the dog's inability to eat or drink, so she went after those primary concerns instead. She also notes that the the blood work was indicative of dehydration and potential pancreatitis or gastroenteritis.
The Investigative Committee report says that no violations occurred. It was unreasonable, they argued, for Jones to have identified the blade of grass; the veterinarian who finally found it had the benefit of what others had already done. They ignore why Jones shouldn't have been able to do the same things at what is supposedly a well-equipped and well-staffed emergency and specialty facility and why the complainant's subsequent concerns were ignored, particularly as the dog declined.
| Source: | November 11, 2017 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Maggie Jones | Respondent |
| Suzie Irwin | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Tamara Murphy | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2017 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Maggie Jones | Respondent |
| Suzie Irwin | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Absent |
| 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.