| Complaint: | Complaint 18-77 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Joseph Mancino |
| Premises: | Chino Valley Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 18-78, 18-79 |
The complainants noticed their dog's mouth was sensitive on the upper right side so they made a dental appointment at Chino Valley. The complainants say Mancino examined the dog and said that the dog had an abscess and needed the tooth removed. They also say that they stated their concerns regarding anesthesia and noted that their dog had problems with allergic reactions and vaccines. They also say that Mancino said they would x-ray the tooth before the procedure to ensure that it had to come out. The complainants subsequently dropped off their dog for the dental. They then received a call from McCullom informing them that their dog's heart had stopped during anesthesia and was dead. The complainants were distraught and a staff member at the clinic said that the last time this happened was five years ago. The next day they received an email thanking them for bringing the dog to the clinic and asking for a review. Kahan called to apologize and say he didn't know why their dog died, relating it to a time when a dog of his choked to death. The complainants subsequently had other concerns regarding lab work, x-rays, and a change in the veterinarian. The facility apparently got on the phone with AVMA insurance.
Mancino states that he wasn't actually the veterinarian who was going to do the procedure. He was just a relief veterinarian who happened to be there that day and meet the complainants. He says that he pointed to a poster on the wall showing all the things that go on prior to and during a dental, and that he also informed them that while the clinic's anesthetic protocol is very safe, there are always risks. He also states that he explained they would need to specify a preference as to veterinarian and that he was told they had no concerns.
The Investigative Committee essentially says that the complainants were ignorant of what was going to happen that day. They also found that while they wish there had been better communication, they did sign the form, and everything the clinic did was within the bounds of acceptable practice. "The tooth needed to be extracted."
| Source: | June 6, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Joseph Mancino | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Absent |
| Tamara Murphy | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| 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.