| Complaint: | Complaint 18-70 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Paul Hindley |
| Premises: | AZPetVet Sarival Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 18-71 |
The complainant says her dog was seriously injured in a dog attack and taken to Sarival Animal Hospital where she was seen by Hindley. She says that Hindley provided medications and told her to come back in the morning and that she should take the dog to another hospital overnight if necessary. The next day the complainant brought her dog back for observation and IV fluids. On the third day the complainant had concerns about abnormal breathing and nausea and came in for another visit with Allen, a different veterinarian. She brought the dog in yet again to have drains removed when an infection was found and was told that they could monitor it and run more blood work. The complainant became increasingly troubled by the breathing problems and says she mentioned it to Hindley on their last visit, but that he told her it was normal and just air getting into the lungs. The dog died the next day. The complainant says that she thinks they were just trying to extract money, regrets taking her there, and that if she'd know how it would have turned out, she would have rather euthanized her dog the day of the injury.
Hindley's response begins with the emergency intake and provides a medical summary of the dog's condition. He had concerns regarding neurological damage and details the initial treatments on the dog including placing drains. He also states that he specifically recommended taking the dog to BluePearl but was declined. He provides additional information regarding concerns for antibiotic resistance and that it was better to wait for additional surgery until damaged versus non-damaged areas of skin were more readily discernable.
The Investigative Committee liked to talk a lot about this one. They thought that perhaps Hindley should have placed a drain on the neck wound. They also wondered if Hindley truly stated the importance of an emergency facility for the dog but also noted the complainant didn't take the dog to one. We also learn that dog attacks can be similar to being hit by a car including heart problems that don't show up for several days, so the dog might have died anyway even at an emergency facility. No violations were found.
| Source: | May 5, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Paul Hindley | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Absent |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| Tamara Murphy | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Aye |
| 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.