| Complaint: | Complaint 19-68 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | WC Hummel |
| Premises: | AZPetVet Westbrook Animal Hospital |
The complainant's dog started getting progressively sicker, and after noticing feathers in the backyard, she was concerned the dog ate a bird. She says the dog was lethargic and not eating but was not vomiting or having diarrhea. The dog also had an eye infection. She took the dog to Hummel where blood work, x-rays, and a corneal stain, IV fluids, an anti-nausea injection, and some medication to take home. She agreed to the x-ray and no bird remains were found. Hummel allegedly diagnosed pancreatitis and said the dog's pale gums were because of dehydration. She says Hummel did not seem concerned about the blood work and was more concerned about the corneal stain because the dog was at risk of going blind. The dog was almost lifeless by the next day and was taken to a different veterinarian that immediately diagnosed IMHA. The dog was eventually transferred to Midwestern with 50-50 odds of recovery, but the dog fortunately survived. She says that after the incident Hummel called her to discuss the blood work that "I" (Hummel) recommended. She also states that people go to veterinarians to obtain their advice on what to do, not have them leave it up to people so the veterinarians can avoid responsibility.
Hummel gives a response from his perspective. We learn that the corneal stain was performed and found a superficial corneal ulcer. Hummel also says that the complainant declined the blood work because she said she could have that done the next day at her regular veterinarian. He tells us that based on what information he did have a diagnosis of gastroenteritis or pancreatitis was reasonable. He repeats several times that he offered blood work but was declined. He also says that if the blood work had been done, he would have been able to diagnose the IMHA.
The Investigative Committee says that Hummel recommended blood work and the complainant said no. The subtlety of the complaint, that the vet allegedly pushed harder on less important stuff than the blood work and the complainant didn't know any better, is lost. The Committee says it was "fortunate" that the complainant noticed the dog getting sick and took him somewhere else for additional care.
| Source: | June 6, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| WC Hummel | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Absent |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| 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 | Absent |
| 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.