| Complaint: | Complaint 19-03 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | William Dean |
| Premises: | North Valley Pet Hospital |
The complainant's dog fell while playing ball. After going to a different clinic, the complainant brought her dog to North Valley Animal Clinic. The dog was examined by Dean and Goulbourn, an ACL issue was diagnosed, and the dog was referred to surgery in California. The complainant subsequently took her dog back to North Valley for checkups and she says the dog slipped and fell at the clinic; apparently an employee may have been cleaning at the time. She noticed a limp again at home and called the clinic who asked if the dog fell at home. On the next visit the complainant believes one of the stitches was actually left in and misidentified as scar tissue. She also asked for an x-ray because of the dog's continued limping. She says that she never received a callback about the x-rays and asked the hospital in California to request them instead. Dean eventually contacted her and told her that the dog had a sprain. The complainant asked for video from the cameras at the facility and did not get a response. She claims the video cameras had been moved by the next visit. The complainant agreed to physical therapy, and she says her dog almost fell due to a slippery floor covered with Lysol. She appears to have a variety of concerns about the practice in general and concludes with pictures (not included) of a stitch she says she had to remove from her own dog because the clinic missed it.
Dean's response states that he feels there is no complaint overall and that the entire matter is a result of misinterpretation of medical records. He says the dog was originally examined by Goulbourn, not him, and that one of the examinations that the complainant mentioned never happened. He explains that an emergency form the complainant found in the records was a form they use in the event of an emergency and was accidentally included in the records. He states that there was no mopping going on the day that the dog is said to have fallen and includes video that should prove this. He concedes that he had issues finding the stitches during the first exam but when they were removed a veterinary technician was able to locate them with a light. He sums up with details on the dog's physical therapy and asks the board to dismiss the complaint because it's untruthful and actually isn't a complaint at all.
The Investigative Committee said that they couldn't figure out what the complaint was as she appeared satisfied with the medical care Dean provided.
Read 21-63 to learn about a dog that died at that same hospital because the anesthesia machine wasn't plugged in correctly.
| Source: | October 10, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| William Dean | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Absent |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Jessica Creager |
| Seconded By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.