This complaint comes from 19-78 in which Sandhu wasn't even listed as a respondent.
Rather, he provided care from the same dogs, and in the investigation for 19-78 it
turns out the investigators learned he prescribed NSAIDs and steroids at the same
time. The Board then voted to open an investigation that turned into this case. Bam!
Sandhu's response gives us the dog's background including the fact that the dog was
unable to walk or control urination or defecation. He states that the dog had been
seen at another hospital and had been taking gabapentin, carprofen (the NSAID) and
prednisone (the steroid). He states that the dosages of caprofen and prednisone the
dog had been on were inappropriate. He also says that his most likely diagnoses were
Valley Fever or disc disease and chose to continue the treatment temporarily at an
appropriate dose. He goes on to mention that he learned of this during the Western
Veterinary Conference held in Las Vegas in 2008. He also includes a copied page
from Plumb's Veterinary Handbook that specifically notes that carprofen and prednisone
can be carefully used concurrently in certain situations and states that he did
exactly that in this case (curiously, even that page isn't part of the public record,
though we've been given scans of other copied pages from similar complains in the past).
He says that when he learned the treatment was not having an effect he told the
person in question to cease giving the medication and take the dog to a specialist.
You'd think that since this does involve, at heart, a medical question it might be good
to have one of the Investigative Committees look into it before the full Board. That
didn't happen; there's just an Investigative Division report where Reindeau signs a
paper with what someone (her?) thinks the facts were and sends it off to the Board. The
Board then found Sandhu guilty, stating that he prescribed the medications concurrently
without a clear justification and didn't warn the complainant about them. He got a total
of four hours in continuing education and was forced to pay a $250 fine.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for using corticosteroids and NSAIDs concurrently without clear clinical justification and without clearly communicating potential adverse effects with the pet owner.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (2 hours in IVDD (intervertebral disc disease))
Continuing education (2 hours in communications)
Civil penalty ($250)
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.