| Complaint: | Complaint 20-101 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Seth Bleakley |
| Premises: | Foothills Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 20-102 |
The complainant tells us that her dog was taken to Foothills as an emergency patient due to rear leg paralysis, incontinence, extreme stiffness and pain, and a protruding anus. Krisko, a veterinarian, suspected disc disease but wanted to confirm via CT scan. Bleakey, a surgeon at Foothills, called and confirmed the CT showed compression at L4 and L5. The complainant elected surgery and was later told it went well; the dog spent the weekend at the veterinarian. On Monday morning Bleakley allegedly called and said the dog no longer had any deep pain sensation and he had no idea what happened; he recommended she pick up the dog to recover at home. Bleakley allegedly recommended an MRI to investigate but noted Foothills had no MRI machine. The dog was not doing well into the next day at home, and out of options, a friend of the complainant's recommended Garcia, a veterinarian in Mexico who had assisted her dog with a burst disc. Garcia's clinic also had an MRI machine, so they went. The dog was diagnosed with progressive myelomalacia and euthanized. Reviewing the records the complainant learned that the CT scan had never been sent off to a radiologist; she claims when confronted Bleakley simply told her "radiologists are wrong." She also has concerns that the compression identified on the CT scan may have been the location for a spinal epidural. She says that Foothills offered her a $4000 refund if she agreed to sign a gag order; she says she turned the offer down as she's more concerned about veterinarians taking advantage of people and their pet family members.
Bleakley tells us a bit about his background as a board-certified surgeon with experience in spinal surgery; among other roles, he worked for four years at Sacramento Veterinary Referral Center, where according to him the neurologists hate having to be on call. He says that the complainant was initially offered referral to a facility with an MRI but declined; whether that was the facility just across the border, or elsewhere, we don't know. He notes that time is of the essence in disc disease so based on the CT scan they needed to operate; the CT scan was also sent off to a radiologist but was inadvertently delayed because of a mixup between himself and Prince, another veterinarian. He tells us that medical records over the weekend showed the dog was doing well, yet when he arrived on Monday morning he noted the dog had lost deep pain sensation. He characterizes the complainant as taking the dog to Garcia because of cost, not because of the availability of the MRI machine. He also says the complainant and her partner don't understand that the myelomalacia was the result of the spinal injury rather than a completely different diagnosis. He says that his clinic offered $4000 as a goodwill gesture and an opportunity to obtain closure without legal proceedings, but the complainant instead demanded $6600. He says his final offer was $4500 at which point the complainant filed a complaint; he states that the complaint was filed specifically because the dollar amount offered was insufficient.
The Investigative Committee uses this as an opportunity to discuss different types of myelomalacia. They also say that Bleakley never actually recorded any tests for spinal reflexes in his records, but they asked him and he says he did them, so it's okay. They also discuss that Bleakley says he found material at the disc in question, yet both CT and MRI findings apparently run counter to that. The Committee found that they believed Bleakley more than the CT and MRI results; the CT results that led to the surgery, in particular, are said to be hard to read, so you can't really believe those. They also said they had concerns that Bleakley may not have actually mentioned an MRI and referral prior to during the surgery. Lastly, they conclude that perhaps the complainant thought something had been done wrong because the clinic offered a settlement. They voted to find no violations (Rai opposed).
The Veterinary Victims League was able to reach out to the complainant in this case. The interviewee indicated that she took her dog to Foothills and they performed a CT to diagnose a slipped disc; they informed her of the diagnosis and she naturally agreed to the surgery to resolve the problem. The dog remained in hospital for days but did not improve, and she was told it could take months to see an improvement in his condition.
She became concerned and friends began recommending taking the dog to a different vet in Mexico instead. She requested her dog's records and states that things really blew up with Foothills at that point. The veterinarian in Mexico (Garcia) reviewed the provided CT images and said that he didn't see anything indicating surgery was needed. He wanted to see the radiology report. The complainant contacted Foothills to obtain a radiology report. She had to wait two days because Foothills had never sent the CT scan out for a radiology report before.
When the report came back, she states that it said there were no clear indicators; rather, the radiology report stated that the CT had been clouded by the epidural done on the dog and recommended an MRI, something Foothills did not have but the Mexican center across the border did have. The Mexican facility was able to diagnose myelomalacia but was not able to determine if it resulted from the original injury or from the epidural or surgery performed at Foothills. The dog began to deterioriate and suffered seizures, at which point he was euthanized.
She had a follow-up conversation with Foothills at which time she alleges that their vet was not able to show the alleged slipped disc on the CT when questioned. She also relates that contrary to the vets' responses to the board, Foothills never even suggested an MRI be performed; she claims to have a recording confirming this (one of the vets admitted it in the conversation) but states the board ignored her evidence. She also claims, counter to the veterinarians' response, that the issue was never about money; indeed, she says she would have happily driven the two to three hours to Phoenix for an MRI if they had offered it. She believes that the veterinarians at Foothills effectively made all her decisions for her by not providing her with honest information.
She also believes that the board was biased against her as a complainant, similar to many others we've spoken with, going so far as to ignore a recording she provided them of a conversation with one of the veterinarians. She also states that Foothills offered her several thousand dollars in exchange for signing a gag order but she refused. She also learned via Yuma web forums that other individuals had similar complaints, some of whom had signed gag orders and were subsequently threatened by an attorney for Foothills when raising concerns in public about the facility. We were able to corroborate some of the stories based on other information.
She states that Foothills used to be owned by a husband and wife team and was known to be a good clinic. However, when Kirk Prince and his son acquired the practice (Prince's wife even works there), she states that quality appeared to decline; she notes that Prince is not even in the area and travels in from Phoenix to do surgeries.
(As an editor's note, it's worth pointing out that Bleakley's response claims that the entire complaint was simply the result of the complainant not being offered a sufficiently high payout. Since this complaint, the complainant has been involved in veterinary activism advocating for change regarding veterinary practice in Arizona, having done so to varying degrees for years. If we buy Bleakley's rationale for her behavior, that would seem to be quite the grudge over an additional $2600.)
| Source: | September 9, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Seth Bleakley | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Nay |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| 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.