A cat's blood work was totally within normal limits except for that whole low-platelets thing

Complaint: Complaint 19-56
Respondent: Richard Heffelman II
Premises: Superstition Animal Hospital

The complainant says that she took her cat to Superstition Animal Hospital and specifically requested a blood test for platelets because they had been low before. She mentions the doctor that originally diagnosed it and that it was treated with prednisone. She says Heffelman called her and told her that "everything was good" but the cat ended up shaking, lethargic, and not opening her eyes, necessitating a visit to 1st Pet and a $1700 bill. She subsequently discovered when getting the records for 1st Pet that the platelets had been low on the test that Heffelman reported as normal.

Heffelman tells us that the complainant "has an irregular speech pattern" that he wasn't able to understand. He gives us a rundown on the cat's anal glands and then tells us that the complainant mentioned a "blood problem" but didn't know what it was. The cat was in and out for anal gland stuff and at some point bloodwork was done. The platelets were normal but Heffelman said that since the cat was doing okay and no problems were reported he suspected a laboratory error. He says that 10 days later he spoke with the complainant again as she was worried about the cat "slowing down" so he recommended a recheck, but she declined.

The Investigative Committee felt that platelet clumping, contrary to Heffelman, wasn't a valid excuse for ignoring the lab results. They state that with the abnormal lab result more investigation should have been performed. They also state that when records were received from the previous veterinarian he should have read them to find out what the "blood problem" was. The Committee also says that entries in the medical record stating that the cat had Evans Syndrome (original "Evan's Syndrome" in the writeup) were entered only after the board complaint was filed. The Committee found a failure to provide current professional and scientific knowledge and the board went with it. Heffelman was sentenced to take four hours of continuing education in blood work analysis.

Motions

Investigative Motion: Find violation

Source: April 4, 2019 PM Investigative Committee Meeting
People:
David Stoll Respondent Attorney
Richard Heffelman II Respondent
Roll Call:
Adam Almaraz Aye
Amrit Rai Aye
Christine Butkiewicz Aye
Donald Noah Aye
William Hamilton Aye
Violations:
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to use of current professional and scientific knowledge for not identifying thrombocytopenia based on lab results from January 3, 2019.
Result: Passed

Board Motion: Offer consent agreement

Source: May 5, 2019 Board Meeting
Proposed By: Robyn Jaynes
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
Violations:
ARS § 32-2232 (12) Failure to use of current professional and scientific knowledge
Result: Passed

Board Motion: Offer consent agreement

Source: May 5, 2019 Board Meeting
Proposed By: Robyn Jaynes
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

Board Order: Order 19056 RICHARD HEFFELMAN II, D.V.M.

Source: Order 19056 (June 6, 2019)
Violations:
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge for not identifying thrombocytopenia based on lab results from January 3, 2019.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in blood work analysis and interpretation with an emphasis on CBCs)

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.