| Complaint: | Complaint 19-13 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Anthony Alber |
| Premises: | Prestige Animal Clinic |
The complainant took her dog to Alber for a routine examination and the dog was vaccinated. However, instead of a dog vaccine, the dog was accidentally given a cat vaccine (Merial Purevax). The complainant states that the dog became very lethargic and was rushed to an emergency center in Gilbert, where the dog was finally diagnosed with IMHA that a veterinarian there (Caldwell) allegedly attributed to the vaccine. She goes on to detail various health problems as well as the financial burden of taking care of a dog with such problems, asking the board to require Alber to reimburse her for the costs of his negligence.
Alber's response begins with the medical history and some brief remarks. He also explains the events leading up to the accidental use of the cat vaccine in the complainant's dog. He details his actions after the event, including contacting the vaccine manufacturer who told him that there should not likely be a problem. He also states that we often do not know what causes IMHA so it would be impossible to rule out the vaccine causing it, but we also cannot prove it didn't. He states that in theory any vaccine could trigger it. He suspects based on what he says are the complainant's statements to himself and to an emergency veterinarian that the dog already had IMHA when the vaccine was administered. He also finds it unlikely that the vaccine could produce IMHA so quickly if it were the cause. He states that nowhere in the dog's medical records does anyone blame the cat vaccine for any of the problems.
The Investigative Committee said that the vaccine was designed for cats but that doesn't suggest that it isn't safe for dogs. They also go on to make some rather interesting leaps of logic that aren't necessary for them to exonerate the veterinarian in this case (see below). Lastly, they say that Alber did a good job of owning up to his mistake.
This case is notable because it contains some of the worst reasoning I've seen on any Investigative Committee report. Read the discussion and then consider the following: One, just because there's no evidence it's unsafe for dogs doesn't mean that it is safe; it just means we don't know either way. Two, they don't know the difference between an attenuated live vaccine and a recombinant vaccine; the vaccine they're talking about uses canarypox with some rabies genes spliced in, so it's actually a recombinant vaccine. Three, saying that the two produce the same antigens doesn't mean they're of equal risk; they very much use different underlying vaccine technologies, and since the causes of IMHA are so poorly understood, there's no way to say that the dog vaccine would have been just as risky. Essentially, they don't think it's likely (and maybe it isn't) but they then come up with a science-sounding word salad to justify their conclusion. And consider two of these three veterinarians have a background in academia or research, and the other one actually owns her own vet clinic. Even the respondent veterinarian never made such broad claims while defending himself.
| Source: | November 11, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Anthony Alber | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Absent |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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.