| Complaint: | Complaint 20-102 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Doyle Kirk Prince |
| Premises: | Foothills Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 20-101 |
This complaint follows from 20-101 but pertains to Prince's involvement.
Prince tells us that Bleakley performed the surgery but that he was responsible for the follow-up care of the dog over the weekend. He states that the dog was able to sit up and eat but still had a variety of problems; deep pain perception was present until Bleakley came in to work on Monday and found there wasn't any. He says that the possibility of myelomalacia was mentioned to the complainant. She eventually called and said she was taking her dog to Mexico and asked for the CT report. He says he spoke with Bleakley and they discovered each of them thought the other one had sent the report off. He also details that the complainant requested a refund and Foothills offered $4000 in exchange; he says she was unhappy with that and asks for $6600. He says that the final offer was $4500 and the complainant then said she was going to file a complaint. He then gives his subjective view of the events, noting the reasoning behind pursuing surgery, his defense of their read of the CT scan and what was found there. He also argues why the CT report was actually consistent with Bleakley's report of finding material at the site; he claims that there was evidence of narrowing but not complete compression and that the contrast would not have affected the results as that was actually at the L5-L6 site instead. They also say that the complainant was aware of the risks and agreed to pay, but it's unfortunate the complainant didn't accept their goodwill offers; it appears they also offered to plant some trees in the Coconino National Forest in memory of the dog. He believes that if they had euthanized the dog, as the complainant now wishes, she would simply have gone after them for not doing the surgery to save the dog's life.
The Investigative Committee discussion is essentially an abridged version of the one from 20-101.
| Source: | September 9, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Doyle Kirk Prince | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| 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.