| Complaint: | Complaint 20-05 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Amalie DiMiceli |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Chandler (in partnership with PetRays) |
The complainant took her dog to 1st Pet because she was worried her dog ate something. 1st Pet didn't have the ability to read the x-rays on site and sent it off to PetRays where they were read by DiMiceli. DiMiceli diagnosed a linear mechanical obstruction in the intestines. The family asked if the dog could pass the obstruction naturally but was told no. 1st Pet also allegedly told the family that the surgery could go poorly and that the dog would need to be euthanized so the family said their goodbyes prior to the operation. Upon cracking the dog open it turns out there wasn't anything in there after all and only some small object in the colon. The dog later pooped out a small rubber ball. Healing from the surgery does not sound as though it was entirely uneventful either.
DiMiceli informs us that she's a board-certified radiologist working for PetRays. Oddly, she refers to 1st Pet using its old name of "First Regional Animal Hospital" for whatever reason. She gives us the reasoning behind her findings and states that based on the x-rays and the dog's history of eating objects that an exploratory surgery was warranted. She also says she is not aware of the timeline between the x-rays and the subsequent surgery.
The Investigative Committee reminds us that radiographs are always open to interpretation "unlike blood work where there is a solid number." (Apparently none of them ever had a single test that was equivocal or open to interpretation? Kritsberg, Tran, and Butler must truly be geniuses of the highest order.) They also said that two other veterinarians read the same radiographs and also concluded that they should cut the dog open to remove something, particularly since the dog had eaten things in the past. Basically, we're left with the conclusion that veterinarians can't read x-rays all that well.
PetRays actually sued another outsourced radiology company for saying bad things, including saying that PetRays wasn't good at its job, in Petrays Veterinary Radiology Consultants v. DVM Insight, Inc.
You might also be interested in 20-41. Another pet was taken to 1st Pet and told that a blockage needed to be removed according to an x-ray, but a follow-up with the radiologist stated that no blockage was present. Fortunately, the person didn't let them cut in that case.
| Source: | October 10, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Amalie DiMiceli | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Christina Bertch-Mumaw |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| 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.