| Complaint: | Complaint 19-25 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Christopher Zetye |
| Premises: | Banfield Scottsdale 1864 |
The complainant took his dog to Banfield for a dental and picked her up the same afternoon. He says the dog was lethargic and had gait and walking issues. He also says that no doctor or "any medical personnel" actually spoke with him. He attempted to remove the bandage on the left leg the next morning and his dog growled and bit him; he states this is completely out of character for his dog and called Banfield immediately. He says he was only able to see a veterinary student, not a veterinary doctor, and learns she was also the one who put the catheter in the leg and took it out. He also details the events involved in the bandage coming off at Banfield and one does not get the impression the dog was pleased. He becomes very upset that Zetye was not available during any of this and states that in human medicine (he works in a health profession) he would basically get busted for most of this. He is finally told by the person at Banfield to take the dog to urgent care. The complainant mentions the video cameras at Banfield as well. He also suggests that Zetye intentionally avoided talking to him.
Zetye begins his statement with a rundown on the visits the dog made to Banfield. He also states that the complainant haggled over prices regarding the dental. He states that the person the complainant mentioned as a veterinary student is actually a veterinary assistant and did not place the catheter; rather he states she monitored the anesthesia during the dental and she's also been accepted to veterinary college. He states that the complainant gave a printout of how to take care of the dog when it goes home and that it's handed out along with the invoice. He also says it's their policy to always have a veterinary assistant or technician go over the instructions (but he doesn't seem to say that happened in this particular case, either).
The Investigative Committee says the bandage couldn't have been too tight or the leg would have been swollen. They also conclude that the dog didn't like having the bandage taken off. Lastly, they state that while the written discharge instructions didn't tell the complainant to take off the bandage, a person did tell him to do so. (Note that the complainant seemed somewhat emphatic that no veterinary personnel spoke with him on discharge.)
| Source: | December 12, 2018 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Christopher Zetye | 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: | 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 | 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.