| Complaint: | Complaint 20-16 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Deandra Owen |
| Premises: | VetMed |
| Related: | 20-17 |
The complainant says that her dog was seen at VetMed for a severed Achilles tendon and muscle. Owen did a surgery and provided follow-up. The complainant says that as she was not allowed to be present for the procedures she asked for photos to be sent; sometimes a small number of photos were sent and other times none at all. The dog was also prescribed Rimadyl, gabapentin, and tramadol. She states that she noticed the splint was too short and failing to support the tendon; it was also making a cut into the dog's leg. Her husband picked up refill prescriptions and continued to give them but noticed a serious change in the dog's health. After examining the medications the complainant discovered that VetMed had dispensed clopidogrel, a blood thinner, rather than the correct medications. She then notified VetMed who recommended she bring the dog in for a stay in the ICU. When she got her dog back from the ICU she discovered that the splint was now wet all the way to the dog's body; it appeared her dog had urinated all over himself and the splint during his stay at the ICU. VetMed also recommended discontinuing the tramadol which increased the risk of the dog injuring the surgery site. The complainant had a conversation with one of the veterinary technicians at VetMed and learned that the clopidogrel was for another dog; the tech was confused why that medicine was gone but the gabapentin for her dog was still sitting in there all week. Subsequent follow-up by the family veterinarian found that the dog's wound had not been healing as expected and that VetMed had neglected to report that fact to her. She had to find another specialist, Lirtzman, to fix the problem though several other procedures. It was also discovered during a subsequent surgery that the dog had a staph infection that she may have been introduced at VetMed during the surgery.
Owen's response begins by telling us that she was only an emergency surgeon when the original surgery was performed. She says that she was actually there for another surgery but offered to do this one as well. She tells us that she did the surgery and discovered on follow-up radiographs that the screw wasn't quite in the right place, so she fixed that and did another radiograph to confirm it was where she wanted it to be. She then takes us through the follow-up process for the dog and mentions several times where she believes the complainant was doing a poor job in providing follow-up care, including applying the bandages without veterinary advice and leaving them wet. She also says that the complainant was wrong and that the dog was not prescribed tramadol but trazodone. She states that she always took pictures as the complainant requested but that she forgot to send them once; she says that she's included all the pictures for the board to review. She also says that the complainant was aware of possible healing problems as a risk of the surgery. Owen says the complainant was very happy with all the care provided until the accident with the medication, which VetMed tried to make right at no expense to the complainant. She also says that when the complainant decided to go elsewhere she asked if she could contact Lirtzman and follow along. She says that the criticism of her surgery is unwarranted and also questions whether a board certified radiologist was involved. Owen also tells us that she found the complainant's Facebook postings and said that the dog isn't doing as bad as the complainant claims.
The Investigative Committee said that the dog had a serious injury that was going to take a while to recover from. They also said that VetMed made a mistake but they took responsibility, paid for it, and there was no apparent harm to the dog from it. "Some Commitee members" felt that incorrectly handing out a blood thinner might be a violation but nothing came of it. The investigators did say, contrary to Owen, that the complainant did a good job taking care of the dog.
| Source: | November 11, 2019 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Deandra Owen | Respondent |
| W Reed Campbell | Respondent Attorney |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.