| Complaint: | Complaint 18-76 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Rachel Grainger |
| Premises: | 99th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Animal Clinic |
The complainant states that a dog escaped from his home (a door was accidentally left open) and that the same day the same dog was allegedly found only 0.2 miles from the home. The people who found the dog, the Lintons, allegedly gave the dog to Nahla Elkhattat to watch while the owners were located. The owners were apparently located within a week, but Elkhattat did not return the dog, instead taking the dog to Grainger's clinic to have it microchipped. The complainant says the dog was never examined by Grainger and only by a veterinary technician who microchipped the dog and grossly underestimated the dog's age (10 months instead of the three years on the dog's breed registration documents). The complainants state that they should never have done so and that there were anomalies in registering the dog with the microchip as well. They note that Grainger and her practice have prevented them from being able to reclaim their dog because of the inaccurate registration. The complainants note many points of similarity between the two animals in question and were apparently going to arrange a DNA test to determine the truth.
Grainger's reply is rather short. She states that Elkhattat presented the dog to her clinic and the dog was never examined. Only a microchip insertion was performed and that was done so by veterinary technicians with no veterinarian involvement. Grainger also says that Elkhattat stated the dog's age at about five years whereas the veterinary technicians thought the dog had to be less than one year old. There is also a note regarding some anomaly in the actual registration of the microchip where someone else managed to enter their information into the system before it was changed to Elkhattat's information. She also states that she spoke with Detective Jemima Schmidt of the Phoenix police department to explain all this, and elaborates that "a different individual" had paid the registration fee and entered information for the dog, but that Jennifer the vet tech corrected it to Nahlka Elkhattat's information.
You might expect that something like this would involve a lot of discussion about the law, about veterinary ethics, and at some point, what was going on with the microchip registration. And you'd be wrong: "The Committee discussed that Respondent's premise provided a service that did not warrant a veterinarian examine the dog."
| Source: | June 6, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Rachel Grainger | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Abstained |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| 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.