| Complaint: | Complaint 18-97 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Gregory Cromer |
| Premises: | Tri City East Vet |
The complainant's dog was seen by Cromer because her dog was limping. She says Cromer said it was allergies and to leave the dog there for a bath. She replied that her dog doesn't lick his paws but agreed to the bath and some additional medications. The dog did not improve and saw Cromer two more times with more allergy-related medications being prescribed. The complainant wanted a second opinion, so she took the dog to another clinic where the dog was seen by Crisler. Crisler allegedly said that it was not allergies and instead thought it was a torn ligament, so he prescribed pain pills. The dog continued to have problems for over a month, so she found a third veterinarian, Heitman, who examined her dog's paws. He diagnosed a possible slight shoulder tear because the dog was otherwise fine. The complainant concludes by stating that online reviews show similar concerns to hers and she's concerned it's a scam and would like a refund.
Cromer's response begins by stating that on the dog's last visit to him the dog was no longer limping. He then mentions that the complainant barged into the clinic the next month and wanted a refund. Cromer contests much of the complainant's narrative, stating that he performed a complete physical exam, found evidence of paw-licking, and provided a detailed estimate to the complainant with a rationale. He also details the other visits by the complainant. He also suggests that the other veterinarians did not find evidence of allergies because he had been treating the allergies, stating that the complainant was withholding information from the other veterinarians. He also says that his office manager will provide a statement regarding the complainant's boyfriend. Ominously, he also states that the complainant's dog may require long-term veterinary care for his many potential issues, including musculoskeletal issues due to his size, unknowns regarding the type of allergies, and even concerns about whether the dog has an underlying endocrine, infectious, or metabolic issue.
The Investigative Committee said that the symptoms waxed and waned, sometimes changing from left front paw to right front paw, and there was probably a mix of issues at work. They suspected a combined musculoskeletal and dermatologic issue because the dog's breed is known for those. The Committee believed that the front left paw was dermatologic in nature whereas the later front right paw issue was because of an injury caused by the innate bounciness of the breed.
| Source: | August 8, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Gregory Cromer | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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.