The complainants say that they brought their puppy to Edwards for a spay. After bringing
the puppy home they noticed a bulge on the abdomen. Edwards allegedly said that the bulge
might be a small hernia which can go away over time. They continued to take their dogs to
Edwards but found her to be verbally abusive to them; after she allegedly called one of
their older dogs a "sociopath" they decided to go elsewhere. The puppy grew up and became
a dog, and the dog started having a bloody discharge and licked her vulva a lot; another
veterinarinan, Benitez, suggested starting by treating as a urinary tract infection but
that ovary remnants could also be causing the problem. It happened again six months later
and Benitez' colleague, Fender, did a surgery and allegedly found all the reproductive
organs were still inside the dog. He performed a spay surgery and also fixed the hernia.
The complainants want reimbursement for their expenses and would like to see Edwards
penalized so she can't do this to other families.
Edwards states that she performed an ovariectomy on the complainant's dog and has done
the same procedure hundreds of times. The uterus would not have been removed in such a
procedure. She also says that the complainants continued to bring the dog back for an
entire year after the ovariectomy and never said they were concerned. She says that
when she learned of what happened she wanted to see the pathology report of the uterus.
She wonders if a remnant of ovarian tissue was left inside the dog.
The Investigative Committee said that the complaiants may not have understood the
difference between a European-style "ovariectomey" and an all-American spaying procedure.
The Investigative Committee also said that they couldn't understand the pathologist's
report and felt that it was ambiguous as to how much ovary was still left in the dog.
A vote was taken to find a violation on the basis of leaving an intact ovary in the dog
and the vote failed 1 aye, 4 nays (no roll call, of course). They then say that the
Board should ask the pathologist what was found because they don't have enough to go on
(can't the Investigative Committee contact the pathologist?). The Committee
then unanimously found some unrelated recordkeeping violations. The Board found a
recordkeeping violation and ordered Edwards to pay $500.
ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to R3-11-501 (1) based on the pathologist's report that it appeared that a full ovary was left behind which is professionally unacceptable
ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L) (4) Failure to document the dog's temperature and general condition in the medical record on August 4, 2016; Failure to document the dog's temperature, heart rate, respiration rate and general condition in the medical record on October 26, 2017; and Failure to document the dog's temperature, respiration rate and general condition in the medical record on November 21, 2017.
A.R.S. § 32-2233 (B) (3) Minor records violations that are routine entries into a medical record and that do not affect the diagnosis or care of the animal.
Penalties:
Civil penalty ($500)
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.