The complainant asks the veterinary board to investigate Christown Animal Hospital
and Sandhu because of the care her dogs received there. She tells us that they were
diagnosed with parvo at another animal hospital and taken to Sandhu at Christown. He
offered to let her treat them at home or to hospitalize them for $700 each per day
for three days. She says he had her sign a waiver stating that the hospital closed
at 7 PM each day but she wasn't aware that meant there wasn't even any staff there
to monitor critically-ill pets hooked up to IVs. She said that she visited multiple
times per day to see her dogs and saw the dogs getting worse but assumed it was the
result of the parvo. She says that when she did visit she noticed the IV pumps did
not work and that the dogs were soaked in their own diarrhea, urine, and vomit. She
notes in particular that each morning when she visited the IV pumps for hydration
seemed to not be working and wondered if her dogs actually received hydration overnight.
When she brought this to Sandhu's attention he said the dogs were ready to go home
and could discharge them that afternoon. That afternoon she came to get the dogs and
Sandhu was already gone. She went to see her dogs and discovered one of them laying
there "unattended, incoherent, moaning and groaning and having difficulty breathing."
She says she yelled for staff who came and said they thought her dog was dead, but she
disagreed as she did note there was breathing. She immediately took that dog to
another hospital where she was euthanized. She came back the next day for her other
dog and met a different veterinarian who allegedly said he had no idea what was going
on with the dog and wasn't aware of the case. She also took that dog home and took
him to be euthanized the following day.
Sandhu's response says that the complainant told him that she couldn't possibly pay
for emergency care because her sister was paying for it. He says that he told her
that the best option would be for her to bring the dogs by each morning and pick
them up each evening. He also says that he explicitly told her that no one would be
present at the facility overnight. He questions how bad his facility can truly be
to have been entrusted with the care of both dogs. He also notes that according to
his records the complainant never had any concerns about their care during their
hospitalization. He resents the notion that he abandoned the dogs as he says he was
going above and beyond letting them stay at the hospital after hours (earlier he
notes that the complainant's sister was a client and much of this was done as a
favor).
The Investigative Committee said that no violations occurred. They said that there
were no guarantees recovering from parvo. They also said that the complainant had
to have known the dogs were going to be left alone overnight because she signed a
waiver and there were signs on the door. In a very rare circumstance, the Board
actually voted to disagree and find violations in this case. Sandhu was required
to take four hours of continuing education and pay a $750 fine.
Sandhu shows up again in 21-103 when a complainant says
she and her dog were taken to an exam room with a whole lotta blood and fluids all
over the place. Fortunately, in her case, those aren't said to be coming from her
own dog.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures in the treatment of parvo by using steroids and metacam concurrently and not continually monitoring “Pinky” and sending home the dog that had declined since the last exam; the pet owner was not made aware of the dog’s condition and no other recommendations were given for treatment.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (2 hours in pain management)
Continuing education (2 hours in parvo treatment)
Civil penalty ($750)
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.