| Complaint: | Complaint 19-23 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Carla Gartrell |
| Premises: | Midwestern University |
| Related: | 19-19, 19-20, 19-21, 19-22 |
Note that this is a very complex situation and stretches across several related complaints. This pertains specifically to the complaint against Gartrell.
The complainant tells us that she started speaking with Gartrell after she obtained no answers from Eberhardt and learned that Dean Graves wasn't available. Gartrell, the Associate Dean, and another faculty member, Patterson, met with the complainant. The complainant says that at this meeting she did learn some new information, including that multiple students had attempted to aspirate the mass on the dog and failed before Thomas was successfully able to do so. She also learned that Thomas had muzzled her dog (an old dog who was blind and hard of hearing) before doing the aspiration. Apparently he was so scared that he urinated all over the exam table and was then put in a kennel for hours while the complainant and her husband waited in the lobby. Gartrell told her that Thomas didn't know the dog had been left there for so long. She also said that communication was not good in this instance and that it would be a teachable moment going forward. The complainant asked about sanctions against any of the individuals involved and was told that the student doctor, Kersting, would receive a bad score on her clinicals for that day. She also says that when her family suggested they would hire an attorney and go after the university, Gartrell told them that she is an attorney and that they don't have a case. The complainant and her family also attempted to follow up with Gantrell regarding the matter and had a second meeting with little result.
Barbara McCloud, Midwestern's attorney, has a general response for this complaint. It's the same one from 19-19.
Gartrell's response is rather short. She states that she did tell the complainant that as the dog had not been necropsied it would be difficult to go after them in a legal case. She also states that she reminded the complainant that the university made it clear that it was a teaching facility and that students are involved in care. She also tells us that eventually she spoke with others internally and decided to refund the complainant the money from the dog's previous visits. She stated that asking each person involved in the dog's care to provide a written statement was pointless because all the relevant information was already in the medical record. (From McCloud's statement it appears that they were refunded a total of $470.04.) As with the other veterinarians' responses, the writing style is so similar that it's difficult to imagine Gartrell wrote this alone. Like Eberhardt, she notes that she provided no care to the dog.
The Investigative Committee said that Gartrell didn't see the dog.
Gartrell may have some interesting connections behind the scenes at Midwestern. There's a 2016 draft proposal for the Christian Veterinary Mission at Midwestern that has Sidaway, Jones, and Gartrell as faculty advisors. The complainant, meanwhile, tells us that when she says her prayers every day, she asks for her dog's forgiveness for ever taking him to Midwestern that day.
Donald Noah's recused here because he was working for Midwestern University. See the writeup on 19-19 for details.
| Source: | December 12, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara McCloud | Respondent Attorney |
| Carla Gartrell | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Recused |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara McCloud | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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 | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Recused |
| 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.