The complainant says her dog had stopped eating and drinking and took him to an
appointment with Lanman. The complainant says she wanted Lanman to examine her
dog first, but the dog was taken to the back for a dental. She was told that the
dog was sick because of bad teeth. A total of 16 teeth were removed for a cost
of $800, but Lanman told the complainant that a foundation would help cover the
cost to $367. (The foundaton in question appears to be the PetsVet Foundation
that was started by none other than Lanman.) She says that the dog got sicker
after the dental and she brought the dog back four separate times. Lanman is
said to have suggested hospice after an ultrasound diagnosed a 2 cm mass on the
liver with multiple tumors. She also said that the dog was having pain in his
neck and not able to walk after this visit but that the clinic told her they had
a "tool" that could put the dog's head and neck back into place. The dog got so
bad that the complainant took her dog to VetMed which found a septic kidney
infection and slipped discs in the neck. The dog spent some time in ICU but was
healed. There was no cancer found. She states that her dog is really all she has
and that the entire experience has been really difficult, in part because of not being sure how
she will pay the thousands of dollars in bills as a result of all this. She also
gives us a handwritten account with some more detail on the entire matter, at one
point stating that the clinic had been bothering her about dentals for quite some
time. She also says that Lanman was often not available and that another veterinarian
there (who apparently did not know much in her view) called up and said the dog had
Cushing's at one point.
Lanman tells us that the complainant had been to a lot of veterinarians including
Midwestern and the Humane Society. There were various lab abnormalities including
liver abnormalities and so on, including a mention of possible Cushing's disease.
She says that she didn't hear from the complainant for seven months at which time
she called and asked about blood tests and wanted a teeth cleaning. Lanman states
repeatedly that the complainant did not mention general health problems with the
dog and only wanted a teeth cleaning. Lanman seems to indicate it was the blood
work done before the dental that found any problems in the first place. She said
that the complainant was worried about the risk of anesthesia and the cost of the
dental, at which point Lanman suggested the PetsVet Foundation could help with the
money. She also tells us that when the complainant brought the dog back, they did
continue to help and do diagnostics which was very difficult because she didn't
have the money. She also suggests that she was the one who suggested taking the
dog to VetMed. Lastly, she says that if she had been permitted to run the correct
tests, or if she had allowed Midwestern or the Arizona Humane Society to do so,
this could all have been avoided.
The Investigative Committee said they had serious concerns regarding recordkeeping.
They also had concerns that Lanman didn't suggest a urinalysis in the dog given the
suspicion of Cushing's or some other disease, but this view appears to have been in
doubt once additional medical records were received from Lanman. They found several
violations, most of which appear to have been left on the cutting room floor by the
Board. The board found four recordkeeping violations. Lanman was required to take
four hours of continuing education and pay a $500 fine. It doesn't appear that
misdiagnosing the dog with cancer and suggesting hospice was a big deal.
ARS § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (E) failure to document in the medical record Complainant was provided with discharge instructions for the dental on June 10, 2019; *(H) (1) failure to obtain signed authorization for the dental procedure on June 10, 2019; *(H) (2) failure to perform an exam on the dog prior to the dental procedure on June 10, 2019; (L) (7) failure to document in the medicalrecord the name of fluids administered to the dog on June 10, 2019; *(L) (7) (d) failure to document in the medical record the route of administration of atropine, torbugesic, telazol and fluids administered to the dog on June 10, 2019; (L) (2) failure to document in the medical record the dog's weight on June 16, 2019; (L) (4) failure to document in the medical record the dog's respiration rate on June 16, 2019; and (L) (4) failure to document in the medical record the dog's temperature, heart rate, and respiration rate and general condition on June 17, 2019. * Respondent submitted medical records after the Investigative Committee which included some of the information the Committee recommended violations for.
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge for not recommending a urinalysis and blood work after changes were noted on an ultrasound performed on June 12, 2019 on a geriatric dog with a fever of unknown origin.
Result:
Passed
Board Motion: Offer consent agreement with modified conclusions of law
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (H) (2) failure to perform an exam on the dog prior to the denial procedure on June 10, 2019.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (7) failure to document in the medical record the name of fluids administered to the dog on June 10, 2019.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (2) failure to document in the medical to record the dog's weight on June 16, 2019.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to document in the medical record the dog's respiration rate on June 16, 2019.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (4 hours in medical record keeping)
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.