| Complaint: | Complaint 19-06 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Shantibhushan Jha |
| Premises: | Animal Medical and Surgical Center |
The complainants say they boarded their special-needs dog with Animal Medical and Surgical Center after many conversations with various clinics. They received a call the next day from a veterinarian wanting to sedate the dog with trazodone. The complainants were concerned as the dog was already on selegiline and the veterinarian seemed to either not be aware of that or be aware of the potential risks. On a subsequent call they learned that the dog had been moved to neurology where it was quieter, but this was contrary to their original understanding that the dog would be kept in the ICU where there would always be someone around. They also state that on the records it appears the dog had gone to the bathroom in her kennel frequently but could find no entries indicating the dog was ever walked outside. They also say that the dog has issues with bathroom behavior after coming home that were not present on intake. They include a printout with their instructions for the dog. There are also concerns about weight loss during the stay.
Jha replies as the responsible veterinarian for the premises. He includes medical records and statements not part of the public record, then goes on to discuss that the dog was admitted as a medical boarder. He states that the neurological ward is next to the main treatment area and is part of the inpatient ward. He also states that the decision to move the dog there was a medical one. He then recounts when the complainants came to get the dog, conveying that were very shocked and upset. He says that the trazodone was a misunderstanding in that the records say not to give trazodone; he claims the complainants thought their dog was actually given trazodone. He also says that the staff made the dog a special kennel, took the dog for walks, and carried it because the records say the dog likes to be carried. He says it took a while to get back to the complainants because he needed to do due diligence and read through the many records first.
The Investigative Committee said that the dog is geriatric with cognitive issues and well taken care of by the complainants. They say that any problems were to be expected as the dog had never been in a boarding situation and was upset. They also state that the hospital staff cared for the dog and that the weight difference may be because of an incorrect weight on check-in or because the dog didn't eat normally. They did say communication between the complainants and Jha could have been better.
| Source: | November 11, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Shantibhushan Jha | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Mary Williams | Absent |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.