| Complaint: | Complaint 19-18 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Roxanne Cornelius |
| Premises: | Kingman Animal Hospital |
The complainant's dog suddenly became very sick and took the dog to Kingman Animal Hospital. Cornelius saw the dog. The complainant asked about euthanasia for how sick the dog was but she diagnosed pancreatitis. The dog didn't improve so he brought the dog back. Cornelius allegedly told him to give the medicine time to work. The complainant mentioned that he called his family vet and that the family vet had doubts about the diagnosis given the rapid weight loss. The complainant remained in town and the dog had both good and bad days and took the dog back to Cornelius for one last checkup. She diagnosed the dog as no longer regenerating red blood cells as a result of the pancreatitis. She reassured the complainant that the death would be painless, so euthanasia was not needed. The complainant left town and the dog was not doing well but he could not find a veterinary hospital in the area that offered euthanasia with cremation services. The dog suddenly got better and was full of energy, eating, and chasing a ball. Another vet ran some tests and found some low blood cell counts but nothing critical. Two days later the dog suddenly began vomiting, having spasms, and took several hours to die, with the complainant "witnessed and felt his abdomen swell up like he had eaten a watermelon." A necropsy apparently diagnosed splenic hemangiosarcoma. He concludes by stating that his dog had always protected him and says he failed his dog by letting him suffer.
Cornelius has a response that details the exams and testing she did on the dog as well as the diagnoses of pancreatitis or possibly cancer. She also states that the dog was well liked at the clinic and one of the technicians felt a special bond with him. Cornelius also makes it sound as though she offered euthanasia but was declined, stating that he wanted the dog to die at home. She states that she felt the complainant would have spent as much money as needed to save his dog but would want to euthanize if the condition were terminal.
The Investigative Committee states that they believe Cornelius more than the complainant. They also say that the complainant asked about euthanasia but didn't order the veterinarian to do it.
| Source: | December 12, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Roxanne Cornelius | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Ryan Ainsworth | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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 | Absent |
| 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.