| Complaint: | Complaint 19-57 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jessica March |
| Premises: | Dr Kellys Surgical Unit |
The complainant says she had teeth extraction done at Dr. Kelly's. At that time the dog's eyes were fine and showed no problems immediately post-discharge. Soon after the eye had problems and they sent pictures but Doctor Kelly ignored them. They took the dog to an emergency clinic that diagnosed glaucoma, so the dog was then taken to an opthamlogist at Eye Care for Animals. The opthamologist said the dog was blind in that eye and cut the eye out. Eventually the dog was euthanized because she was no longer walking, had two seizures, and was in a lot of pain. The complainants also seem to believe that the veterinarian actually was the eponymous Doctor Kelly, not March.
March's response states that the dog was presented to her for a dental procedure and that given the condition of the teeth some would likely be pulled. She states that the dog had heart problems and was under the care of a cardiologist who allegedly told the complainants that the dog was cleared for anesthesia. She says that the dental was uneventful and had no communication with the complainants prior to receiving the complaint. She says she had people check the records and there are no records of any phone calls or messages after the dental was done.
The Findings of Fact also have a bit of missing history for us to follow along. 1st Pet saw the dog first and thought that it might be glaucoma. AVECCC saw the dog next and thought it might be glaucoma, an abscess, or a tumor, and suggested opthamology. Eye Care for Animals suggested that the eye might have been penetrated during the dental or harmed by the nerve blocks. After the eyeball was cut out the dog wasn't doing so well so the dog went back to 1st Pet. They said it was just the result of the recent surgery. Later that day the dog could no longer walk, had two seizures, and was euthanized somewhere.
The Investigative Committee said that it was unfortunate that something happened to the dog's eye but the dental procedure went as expected and nobody mentioned any concerns to the complainants. They note that there were communication issues between March and the complainants after the dental. They also say that medical professionals couldn't agree on what happened to the eye (though the only opthamologist did seem to suggest that it may have been the result of the dental). The Committee suggests that perhaps it was just glaucoma that happened to flare up at the exact same time as the dental was performed.
| Source: | May 5, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Jessica March | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| 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.