| Complaint: | Complaint 19-48 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Katherine Hewitt |
| Premises: | Ingleside Animal Hospital |
The complainant took her cat to Hewitt because he had bad breath. She says Hewitt examined the cat, said the cat had stomatitis, and needed all of his teeth pulled at the cost of $2000. She also says Hewitt ordered a FeLV/FIV snap test which was positive for feline leukemia. The next day she took her cat to another veterinarian, Fraser, for a second opinion. He allegedly told her that not all the teeth needed pulled, removed some plaque from the teeth, and the cat's breath improved over the next several days. He also recommended continuing the antibiotic therapy. He also repeated the snap test but it was inconclusive, but a more definitive test was negative for feline leukemia. She went to speak with the owner, Brian Serbin (both a Past President of the Arizona Veterinary Medical Association and a former Chair of the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board), who allegedly told her that "you came for an opinion and you got one" when asked for a refund. The complainant says that Hewitt and Ingleside Animal Hospital should be investigated for unethical practices.
Hewitt's response details her examination and says that she made great efforts to show the complainant the extent of the oral problems. She states that the cat had documented stomatitis from several years ago and was able to document moderate to severe gingivitis and stomatitis. She says she also found problems with broken teeth. She stated that she would never try to pull plaque off teeth as that's what dentals under anesthesia are for. She claims that she mentioned that some teeth might be able to be spared but usually all the teeth have to come out and that's why the estimate included all the teeth. She also tells us that the complainant was referred to the clinic owner, Brian Serbin, when she asked for a refund. Hewitt concludes by stating that she hopes the complainant realizes that the difference in lab tests mean that the test should be repeated. She also believes the improvement in the cat is a result of the antibiotic and will be short-lived.
The Investigative Committee says they understand that the complainant was concerned but that Hewitt's recommendations were medically acceptable. It was simply a difference of opinion between two veterinarians.
Hewitt's boss and top chopper Serbin gets targeted as the responsible veterinarian of this clinic in 21-44. In that complaint a dog gets a shot of heartworm medication he didn't need because Hewitt didn't read the medical record. He also dodges some concerns about his clinic's computer software not knowing when pets are due for vaccinations and opting the pet owners out of reminders unless they put up with the clinic's emails.
| Source: | April 4, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Katherine Hewitt | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| 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 | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.