This complaint follows from 18-19. The Investigative Committee found that Gilson was not at
fault but suggested somebody go after Stinnett instead. It looks like somebody took the advice.
Stinnett explains her rationale as to why she waited to perform surgery on the suspected
blockage. She was not convinced that a blockage existed and felt that it would be reasonable
to provide supportive therapy and perform a barium study first. She also details the surgery
the following day. She says that when she left the dog was doing well and that further care
and discharge was handled by another vet, Kirkhope, as a result of an error. She also details
her conversation with Herrera at BluePearl after the euthanasia. She does not mention the
text conversations with Gilson when the dog first arrived at the premises (see 18-19).
The Investigative Committee found Stinnett guilty of gross negligence for performing the
surgery. The discussion stands out compared to the typical deference shown in most such
discussions. They say that because another veterinarian worked up the dog for surgery and sent
them over, Stinnett should have just done the surgery despite any concerns she had. They also
conclude that the dog died as a result of one or more surgical sites failing despite no
necropsy being performed in this case. The veterinary board rounded down to a violation for
failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not being able to identify a
blockage on the x-rays (again, interesting if you read mentions of messages between Stinnett
and Gilson in 18-19). Stinnett fought it in court all the way, as you can see if you examine
the board order associated with the case.
ARS 32-2232 (11) gross negligence - for postponing the surgery when the entire purpose of the referral was to have surgery performed immediately; postponing of the surgery may have resulted in injury, unnecessary suffering or death.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC, R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for misinterpretation of radiographs and missing a blockage pattern.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in radiographic interpretation focusing on the abdomen)
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.