The complainant's dog was examined by Oler who noted the dog was breathing fast
and had a rapid heartbeat. Oler apparently suggested that it was the result of bacteria or Valley Fever. The complainant asked what testing should be done
and was allegedly told that "you can spend a lot of money on tests, a lot of
money on treatment, and you're just going to get back the same old dog." The
complainant said his dog was family and asked what to do, at which point Oler
said he would need to do blood tests. The dog was sent home with medications
and told to do blood work if the dog didn't improve. The dog didn't improve,
blood was drawn, and the clinic later followed up with the complainant's
roommate. The clinic apparently suggested that the dog was depressed. The dog
still wasn't doing good and the complainant's friend, a medical doctor, came by
at this time. She said that the dog must have a serious heart problem and needed
to be seen immediately. Another clinic in town was willing to examine the dog the
next morning. The dog died during the visit from an enlarged heart and lungs that
were beginning to fill with fluid. The complainant says that in a subsequent
conversation with Oler he was told that it was a "swing and a miss." He says he
has a recording of the conversation.
Oler says in his response that his hands were tied. According to Oler he suggested
blood tests and x-rays, all of which the complainant allegedly turned down. He says
that the complainant then waited a week before coming back to have a single test.
Oler says that the roommate, not him, said that the dog was just depressed. He then
says that he's reviewed the radiographs from the other veterinary clinic and that
the condition was very grave (hinting that the dog was basically doomed no matter
what). Oler says that he believes the complainant was angry and needed to place
blame, and that the dog was just sick and was going to drop dead from the stress
of having an x-ray done.
The Investigative Committee found a violation in that Oler should have recommended
x-rays and that he behaved unprofessionally to the complainant after the dog had died.
The full board only kept the portion of the violation related to the x-rays. Oler
was required to take six hours of continuing education and pay a $500 fine.
ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by not recommending radiographs and not communicating with Complainant in a professional manner, in a conversation that occurred after the dog passed away, with respect towho's responsibility it was to recommend diagnostic testing.
Result:
Passed
Board Motion: Offer consent agreement with modified conclusions of law
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures by not recommending radiographs and following up to ensure proper diagnostics were being performed on the dog.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (3 hours in medical record keeping)
Continuing education (3 hours in cardiac cases)
Civil penalty ($500)
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.