| Complaint: | Complaint 18-90 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Hanna Canfield |
| Premises: | VCA Valley Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 18-91, 18-92, 18-93 |
The complainant's dog threw up and refused to eat or drink. The dog was seen by a regular vet who said the dog wasn't a candidate for surgery for a blockage and suggested euthanasia. The dog was then taken to Southern Arizona Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center where Toll-Schacter allegedly diagnosed the dog with cancer and suggested euthanasia. They say no blockage was found there so they took the dog to get a third opinion where an IDEXX radiology consult suggested an intestinal obstruction secondary to a shelled nut. The complainants were advised to get the dog to an emergency hospital, so they went to VCA Valley Animal Hospital. Canfield saw them first and they gave her the IDEXX x-ray and report. They then got a call that the dog's oxygen level was dropping, pneumonia had set in, and more money was needed or the dog should be dead. They agreed and followed up later in the day, at which point they were told that they did repeat x-rays but could find no obstruction. The complainants say they begged them to call IDEXX but that it never happened. The dog was in hospital for several days and Canfield suggested the dog may have cancer. VCA began pushing for euthanasia. They were eventually told that it was time to get the dog and bring her home if they wanted to say goodbye. The complainants also say that the veterinarians met and decided it would be better to euthanize the dog than to bring her home, but the complainants did anyway.
At home they provided supportive therapy and administered a "natural product" that was supposed to assist in dogs passing blockages. After two days the dog did finally defecate for the first time in nine days, passing an apricot pit. The dog's condition is then said to have markedly improved, with the dog eating and drinking and finally being able to walk by herself again. The complainants were very concerned that most of the doctors and emergency centers wanted them to kill their dog when the dog went on to live normally. They also asked for a refund as they felt VCA was exploiting them; they ask why VCA would allow a dog they felt had no chance to stay there for five days yet want the dog dead. He wonders why they didn't just give the dog a laxative. He also says he feels like a mechanic who fixed his car at home after the dealer says the car is unfixable and needs replaced.
Canfield's reply gives details about the management of the case and her conversations with the complainant. The dog was certainly on a lot of drugs. She also notes that VCA had x-rays performed and evaluated by Antech where a radiologist also diagnosed a suspicious area. She says that there was no need to contact IDEXX because whether or not the dog had a blockage the dog was too sick to remove it. Canfield says that in her opinion a cancer was more likely than an obstruction based on x-rays. She also says that she disapproved of him taking the dog home but told him they would support him in any event. She also states that she would never have used an alternative therapy as he did. Canfield also says that while it's completely irrelevant she wants the board to know that the complainant constantly made negative and disparaging complaints about women practicing medicine.
The Investigative Committee's discussion said that it was actually the supportive therapy provided by VCA that saved the dog. They state that it was impossible for the slippery elm to have caused the dog to defecate without all the help VCA provided prior. They also said that the care the dog received was appropriate and that communication from the veterinarians was excellent. They also say an oil-based laxative could not have been administered to the dog in its condition in hospital. They fail to discuss that three clinics, including two emergency and referral centers, pressured the complainant into ending his dog's unworthy life on the basis of a possible cancer that turned out to be an apricot pit. They'd much rather talk about the efficacy or inefficacy of some New Age remedy instead.
| Source: | August 8, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Hanna Canfield | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| 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.