| Complaint: | Complaint 20-118 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Polina Vishakutsan |
| Premises: | Veterinary Specialty Center of Tucson |
| Related: | 20-119 |
The complainant states that two veterinarians, Vishkautsan and Drake, are responsible for a lack of communication, negligence, dereliction of responsibilities, and misinformation that led to the euthanasia of her dog; she wants compensation and a replacement purebred. She states that she took the dog to VSCOT where Vishkautsan performed x-rays. Vishkautsan allegedly called her back and informed her the dog had an inoperable, cancerous tumor in the nasal area; the complainant asked if it could be benign and was allegedly told that all tumors are cancerous. Vishkautsan also allegedly said that the only possible help would be $10000 for radiation treatments, at which point the complainant says she broke down crying because she didn't know where she'd get the money right then. She also says Vishkautsan offered to show her the x-ray but that was of little use as she was two hours away at the time. She went the next day to pick up her dog and was charged $2500 but claims they gave her no additional information such as prognosis, things to watch for after the procedures done at VSCOT, and so on. The only discharge instructions she says she received was that a veterinary technician told her to bring the dog back if he got a bloody nose. She says that despite multiple calls she received no information from Vishkautsan for four days, at which point she was told the dog also had an operable throat tumor. Vishkautsan apparently also said the dog had only a few days to live and should be euthanized. The complainant, on the other hand, said that the dog had some breathing problems after coming home but seemed to be improving, making her wonder if many of the dog's immediate problems were the result of the procedures and biopsy. She took the dog to another veterinarian for surgery (Drake, see 20-119) and ended up euthanized. She later received a call from her dog's regular VCA vet stating they were happy to hear the biopsy came back noncancerous; the complainant had not been informed and after speaking with her regular vet was told that the dog likely was having some problems breathing from the procedures done (as he was a bulldog) and didn't need to be euthanized.
Vishkautsan tells us that she first saw the dog as an internal medicine referral for nasal discharge. She says she offered a CT scan and potentially a rhinoscopy and biopsies to investigate. The complainant is said to have agreed and pushed Vishkautsan to get the dog in sooner because he wasn't doing well. Vishkautsan discovered a large nasal mass on CT and elected to skip the rhinoscopy; she also did biopsies but states she had to alter her approach, thus yielding biopsies that tend to be nondiagnostic. She also says that she called the complainant and offered euthanasia while the dog was still knocked out from the CT scan (based in large part on her own experiences when attempting to debulk such tumors had failed). She offered to show the complainant the CT images in person or on a Zoom call (because clients often don't understand the anatomy of the nose) but the complainant "flatly refused." She says that the dog was doing well after the procedure and sent home. She also says that the biopsy report came back as "nondiagnostic"" with "chronic lymphocytic plasmacytic rhinitis with marked sub mucosal gland hyperplasia, cartilage and lamellar bone" (but no cancer). She says she told the complainant this over the phone and that the complainant refused to pursue another biopsy to double-check; Vishkautsan relates that she was still sure it was cancer but also relates that she never told the complainant the dog actually had cancer. She also says that the complainant didn't understand until now that there was a separate mass in the throat. She says she mentioned $10K for "definitive" radiation treatment but that palliative radiation is significantly cheaper. She then took off and flew out of the country to visit her father who was dying of terminal cancer. (This is one of those places where the story practically writes itself.)
The Investigative Committee basically chalks the matter up to either denial or willful ignorance on the complainant's part. They state that they would have liked to have seen better communication "on both sides" but nearly all of the concerns they have relate to the complainant rather than Vishkautsan. There's also a subtext that the complainant didn't understand how truly sick the dog was (but if that were the case, why would she be calling around to find someone to do a surgery, and why would she have allegedly pled with Vishkautsan to get the dog in there in the first place?). Interestingly, the Committee said they had "concerns of addendums added to the medical record after the complaint was filed" but that based on an email they saw, it's clear to them that the complainant was made aware of the situation by Vishkautsan.
| Source: | November 11, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Polina Vishakutsan | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.