| Complaint: | Complaint 20-117 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Andrea Savarese |
| Premises: | Banfield Chandler 1017 |
The complainant begins with a short introduction stating that she believes her dog's prior medical history, accessible from any Banfield location, was not taken into account, leading to the death of her dog. She mentions concerns including a change in food, opioids, multiple doses of Cerenia, and Pyrantel being given when the dog was already on Tri-Heart. She also states her conversation with Savarese seemed more like an upselling opportunity than a talk with a doctor. The remainder of the complaint is a copy of a somewhat long-winded letter she sent to Banfield; while there's a lot there, not all of it directly relevant, it does give a picture of someone who deeply loved this dog as family and hurt greatly with the loss. She states that she feels ignored by Banfield and says the veterinarian who reviewed her complaints graduated from the same veterinary school as Savarese. She also says she was concerned learning the Banfield staff were only assistants under Savarese and not certified veterinary technicians. She says her dog was vomiting and brought the dog to Savarese, who in turn diagnosed the dog with pancreatitis and diabetes; she said that she wanted a second opinion on the diabetes. She also says she was given a brochure about the local emergency clinic and that the dog was put on diabetic pet food that he refused to eat. Among other issues, she wonders why the dog was given Pyrantel when the dog was already on Tri-Heart, particularly as a stool sample she brought in was negative. She also contests the notion that she fed her dog "table scraps" as noted in the record; she tells us she grew up without a lot of money and that the food she gives her dog, while the same as she eats, are not scraps. She also asks why her dog was given tramadol when the notes state the dog showed no pain. She also tells us how she took her dog to 1st Pet Veterinary Centers (where she had spent $9000 on her son's dog at one point); she was told by a staff member the dog wasn't that sick and turned away. She then took the dog back to another veterinarian at Banfield, Patel, who discontinued the tramadol, told her to go back onto the old dog food, and said to treat the pancreatitis before starting diabetes treatment exactly as she had asked Savarese to do. Her dog was seen on an outpatient basis at Banfield another time until another veterinarian there, Butler, referred her to AVECCC in Gilbert. She says she was surprised as the phone message directed clients to 1st Pet, which had already turned her away, and she was concerned about driving to Gilbert in the dark at her age. She says that she took the dog home and was given a discharge paper that suggested her dog was doing great, making her wonder why she needed to take the dog to an emergency clinic. The dog apparently died but there's not much to explain what happened there; she wonders if 1st Pet would have agreed to look at her dog if she'd offered them more money. She also has a subsequent letter for the veterinary board stating that she's not sure why her dog's medical records seem to say the dog was given both Humulin R and Vetsulin while admitted at Banfield, particularly as some instructions she was given said the dog was likely to not be controlled on Vetsulin.
Savarese's response says she only saw the dog once, reiterating the dog's presentation for vomiting and lethargy, initial examination, weight loss, and abnormal blood results including elevated glucose. She says that she gave the dog Pyrantel because that drug was included on Banfield's Optimum Wellness Plan; she says Banfield generally does that twice a year for each dog, and that she also does it because she doesn't trust people are actually giving the medications at home. She says that there were no contraindications because the dog wasn't weak or infirm, he just had pancreatitis and untreated diabetes. She also says that the complainant told her the dog was fed ice cream, scrambled eggs, Beneful dog food and other items on a regular basis and was told to stop (the complainant instead mentions things like Frosty Paws, a dog "ice cream," and states that she might share a bite of her food with the dog but not a lot). She relates the complainant was uncomfortable with giving her dog insulin shots and seems to suggest the complainant was actually in denial; she allegedly warned her about the risk of hyperglycemia and to take the dog to AVECC, stating that's the hospital listed on their voice mail and signage. She also defends the use of tramadol as being safer than NSAIDs in such situations. She also states she injected the dog with Cerenia but sent the complainant home with pills to continue treatment.
The Investigative Committee's discussion seems heavily influenced by Savarese's own response. They even agree with the notion that it's acceptable to give the Pyrantel on the assumption that owners are neglectful of their dogs and don't ensure they get their medications in a timely manner. They state that dogs that go into ketoacidosis don't live long and heavily suggest that's what happened to this dog; it's a remarkable degree of certainty given the usual hesitance on the part of investigators. They also find the complainant at fault, asking why she didn't take the dog to somewhere when the dog was obviously getting worse. (They must not have read how being turned away from 1st Pet early on made her feel like they wouldn't take her seriously, to say nothing of her concerns about being able to drive safely to AVECC in Gilbert given her advanced age. Other records mentioned in the Findings of Fact also state she was concerned about not being able to visit her dog because of coronavirus restrictions. It seems less a mystery and more a failure of Almaraz, Rai, Dow, and Sidaway to absorb what they are supposed to have read.)
One way to read this is that a rambling old woman ignored her vets and killed her pet; this would seem to be the official take, more or less. Another take is that she loved that dog more than anything and found it difficult to trust what she was told because of the sales-pitch nature of the profession (and was arguably being incompletely informed and outright ignored in some ways).
| Source: | November 11, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Andrea Savarese | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Andrea Savarese | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.