| Complaint: | Complaint 20-103 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Hanna Wachtel |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Phoenix |
The complainant says her dog was attacked by another dog and taken to 1st Pet. The dog was seriously injured and kept overnight. Lunt performed surgery and said he was happy with the outcome. Wachtel discharged the dog and sent him home with tramadol and gabapentin but no antibiotics. The complainant relates how she took turns with her husband caring for the dog as he improved. She took the dog back to 1st Pet three days later for drain removal but was instead sent home with antibiotics; she believes 1st Pet knew they forgot to include antibiotics the first time. She says the dog quickly deteriorated with what appeared to be sepsis and was euthanized. She also says she later learned the dog had no antibiotics at all and attempted to contact Lunt to complain. Lunt allegedly responded after a few days and said that it was a mistake to send the dog home without any antibiotics and refunded her all her money ($4167.00).
Wachtel's response contains a lot of medical history. Some key points are that she seems to suggest Lunt would be the one to blame as he did not prescribe any antibiotics when doing surgery. She tells us that under 1st Pet's protocols the veterinarian who does the surgery is responsible for the prescriptions, not the veterinarian handling the discharge. She then says that they had "extraordinary" patient volume during this case and attempts to chalk much of the problem up to coronavirus-induced communications problems. She concludes that 1st Pet took responsibility by giving the complainant a refund, then states the dog could have died even if they had sent the dog home with the antibiotics. We're also told 1st Pet has gone on a hiring spree to make sure this doesn't happen again.
The Investigative Committee said they had concerns with the hospital's protocol regarding prescriptions. They also state that neither Wachtel nor other staff reviewed the discharge instructions to note that no antibiotics were sent home with the dog. They think this omission likely contributed to the death of the dog. Some Committee members also appeared to think that blame rested with Lunt for the oversight. The Committee found Wachtel guilty of gross negligence and the Board disagreed, sending her only a letter of concern.
| Source: | October 10, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Hanna Wachtel | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (11) gross negligence; treatment of a patient or practice in veterinary medicine resulting in injury, unnecessary suffering or death that was caused by carelessness, negligence, or the disregard of established principles or practices for not dispensing antibiotics to the dog at discharge. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | November 11, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Hanna Wachtel | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| 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.