Complaint: | Complaint 19-59 |
---|---|
Respondent: | Analys Castillo |
Premises: | AZPetVet Arrow Animal Hospital |
The complainant and another person took care of their dog together and had been bringing the dog to Arrow Animal Hospital for several years. The dog had suffered from hemorrhagic gastroenteritis from a Chinese dog bone and they subsequently gave the dog on an all-natural diet. They state that Arrow had no concerns at the time. The dog was in good health but suddenly suffered from loss of appetite, a lack of desire to walk and needing to be carried. The complainant took the dog to Arrow and was seen by Castillo. Castillo allegedly palpated the dog's stomach and said that the stomach was bloated and the dog was in pain. The complainant says that Castillo said the dog may have pancreatitis or kidney problems, then suggested that the bland diet the dog was being fed might be at fault. Castillo allegedly said that the diet didn't have enough nutritional value for the dog and recommended a battery of tests to identify organ dysfunction, also prescribing one of the prescription diets on offer at Arrow's premises. The complainant says that neither an x-ray nor an ultrasound were offered and her suggestion for an x-ray was turned down by Castillo. She says that she was given medication that just made the dog worse so she didn't use them. She also says they started considering going to another veterinarian at this time. About two months later the dog would not eat or move and passed dark brown urine and was taken to Arrow again on emergency. The dog was found to have a large tumor in her stomach and was euthanized. The complainant wonders why an x-ray was not considered initially and why Castillo focused on diet rather than considering other aspects of the dog's health.
Castillo states that the dog had been fed a limited diet. Based on her examination she believed that possible diagnoses were related to diet, pancreatitis or gastroenteritis, or inflammatory bowel disease. She also mentions a list of less likely diagnoses. She says that the complainant declined the recommended full bloodwork and also declined an x-ray (contrary to the complainant who says she was told it wouldn't be worthwhile). She reiterates that she recommended an x-ray at the time and was turned down, and that if the mass had been present, it would likely have not changed the dog dying.
The Investigative Committee says that misunderstandings and communication issues were present. They state that the estimate and medical record both say that x-rays were offered but declined by the complainant (which definitely isn't what the complainant says). They also fault the complainant for not taking the dog to get a second opinion soon enough to possibly save the dog.
Source: | May 5, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
---|---|
People: | |
Analys Castillo | Respondent |
David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
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: | Darren Wright |
Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
Roll Call: | |
Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
Darren Wright | Aye |
J Greg Byrne | Absent |
Jane Soloman | Absent |
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.