| Complaint: | Complaint 18-42 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Gene Nightengale |
| Premises: | Buena Pet Clinic |
The complainant, a long-time client, dropped her dog off for a recommended dental with Nightengale. Nightengale allegedly told her that there were only two dentals scheduled for the day and that her dog would be first. She was told to expect a call around 11:30 and says that she received a call at that time, except that she was informed her dog had gone into cardiac arrest at 9:37 during the start of the procedure. The dog was also now having seizures.
The complainant and her friend went to get the dog and found her lying on a table unresponsive. They had to transfer the dog to a critical care facility themselves. The critical care facility recommended a neurologist but said the dog was too unstable to transport and no portable oxygen was available. They chose to wait until the dog was more stable and found it difficult to visit the dog because the critical care facility said they were too busy to allow visits. The dog eventually died at the critical care center. The complainant went on have two meetings with Nightengale about the incident; she doesn't know whether the administration of anesthesia or the equipment was at fault, but hopes that an investigation can make it safer for pets who have routine dental work.
Nightengale's response details the medical history of the dog and the events leading up to the dog's eventual death, stating that he had no idea why the dog died but that the equipment had been inspected recently. He mentions that concerns about anesthesia were discussed by the complainant prior to the procedure and he performed blood work to provide safety. We learn the dog arrested at 9:37 and CPR attempts began at that time; the dog subsequently came back at 9:50. He says that pulmonary edema was identified so he used furosemide and a catheter to try and get things under control before calling the complainant. He tells us that he made copies of records to send with the complainant to Pima Pet Clinic. Lastly, he says that in follow-up conversations the complainant confided she was having trouble accepting the dog's death, but that sometimes we just don't know why these things happen.
The Investigative Committee found that they had concerns with record-keeping and the delayed notification once the dog arrested and started seizing. The veterinary board had other ideas and only sent a letter of concern.
We were able to reach the complainant in this case. She relates that she had trusted Buena Pet Clinic for 30 years before this incident. She had concerns about dentals particularly after a friend of hers had a similar problem with a dental and the dog survived after three days. She described Nightengale as an old-fashioned veterinarian using old-fashioned techniques, and she wasn't even aware that she could file a complaint with the veterinary board until a veterinary friend of hers told her to do so. Unfortunately, she believes that Nightengale was a well-known vet so the board didn't really care what he did; according to his bio on Buena Pet Clinic's website, he was a past president and former board member of the Southern Arizona Veterinary Medical Association. (Unlike other states Arizona actually has two veterinary medical associations: Double your pleasure, double your fun!)
We also learned how much the complainant loved her dog. She repeatedly stated that the dog was a big responsibility for her, and a person well-known in the dog community trusted her with the dog when the dog was retired. She related how she took the dog's eye problem seriously and always ensured the dog got regular checkups. That attachment made it even more difficult for her to see how eager Pima Pet Clinic pushed for euthanasia while hospitalized there; she wonders if veterinarians see so much death that they don't view it like the rest of us do. We learned the overall experience at Pima was also hostile, with the veterinarians there focused mostly on money and euthanasia rather than her pet. Some of them appeared to be rather friendly with Nightengale.
The complainant also informed us that one of the biggest things wasn't even in the report. It appears that during the delay between the cardiac arrest and the phone call, Nightengale had found the time to clean the dog's teeth after going into cardiac arrest. She relates that he told her this during one of their conversations after the fact, and that when her dog was dying at Pima Pet Clinic she noticed teeth were very clean; Nightengale allegedly said he finished the dental so the dog wouldn't have to come back in. She says that she told this to the board but at that time he denied it.
She has concerns about the board's operations, pointing out that she didn't even know filing a complaint was an option until a veterinarian friend of hers told her to file one. In her opinion the board basically protects veterinarians rather than treating complaints impartially, and even though nothing happened to Nightengale in this case, she hopes that perhaps it scared him to be more careful next time. She describes the entire situation as nothing more than a buddy system and Nightengale's punishment as a slap on the wrist, wondering how many similar incidents go unreported.
| Source: | March 3, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Gene Nightengale | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Ed Hunter | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (H) (1) for failure to obtain signed authorization from the pet owner prior to the dental procedure | |
| ARS 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (H) (2) for failure to record the animal's general condition in the medical record six hours prior to anesthesia or surgery | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not contacting the pet owner in a timely fashion after the dog arrested and CPR was initiated | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not placing an IV catheter in the dog prior to anesthesia. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | April 4, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| 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.