| Complaint: | Complaint 19-62 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Phalen Smith |
| Premises: | Crossroads Veterinary Hospital |
The complainant says that Smith pulled two of her dog's teeth. A year later she took her dog to a different veterinarian for another issue and of x-rays found the tooth roots were still in there. That vet took out one of the roots but said the other would need to be removed by a specialist. The complainant took her dog to a dental specialist who recommended watchful waiting. He allegedly said that it would be more difficult to remove now as it had been over a year and bone had grown around the remnant. He recommended pain medications which the complainant said would not be an option because of the dog's Cushing's disease. The complainant also notes additional expenses potentially running into the thousands of dollars. The complainant says that she spoke with Smith and that Smith actually said she had made a mistake, she says Smith told her that she left the roots in because she had to make a "judgement call" about trying to remove the roots and damaging his jaw. The complainant feels that the lack of mention in the records also speaks to a cover-up on Smith's part.
Smith's response mostly consists of a timeline prior to and leading up through the dental in which the roots were left in. She says that she specifically told the complainant's husband that one of the roots had been left in to avoid causing any damage to the jaw, whereas the other root she actually thought she had completely removed at the time. She says no further concerns were noted and that the dog was eventually taken to a holistic veterinarian several months later. Her next contact regarding the dog was the complainant wanting to speak about a medical mistake. Once learning of the concern she states that she obtained records from all the different veterinarians including the specialist. She notes that the complainant wants the remaining tooth removed despite medical advice to the contrary (but does not appear to acknowledge the complainant's concerns about pain medication and Cushing's disease). Smith concludes by saying that if she had to do it all over again she would do the same thing, but she would be more clear about what she did.
The Investigative Committee said the complainants may not have been advised that the roots were left in and therefore could not be monitoring the dog appropriately. They found a failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not disclosing the retained tooth roots, but the board rounded it down to a letter of concern.
| Source: | May 5, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Phalen Smith | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Mary Williams | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not disclosing to the pet owners retained roots were left after a dental procedure on January 5, 2018. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| 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.