| Complaint: | Complaint 20-21 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Brian Sessink |
| Premises: | VCA Animal Referral and Emergency Center of Arizona |
| Related: | 20-20 |
This complaint follows from 20-20 and has the same context. This complaint relates to Sessink's role as the veterinarian who examined and euthanized the dog on his last visit. Unless Sessink didn't do it and a different veterinarian, Ulrich, did instead. It's not entirely clear.
Sessink provides a signed response. There's also a second response that has no name but states that it's related to this particular case. The first response is somewhat abrupt whereas the second one provides a bit more information. From his timeline the dog wasn't able to urinate or defecate. He says that he was concerned about a urinary tract infection, a bladder stone, or potentially cancer. We're told that the complainant declined all blood work, x-rays, or urinalysis, at which point he was offered some medications to treat the dog. He says the complainant also refused that option, at which point he went ahead and did a free FAST ultrasound to examine the bladder. He says that he found a large mass occupying about 60% of the urinary bladder, but that the images from FAST ultrasounds are not saved. At this time the complainant elected euthanasia based on the dog and his poor prognosis. Someone says that he's sorry the complainant now regrets the euthanasia but says that it was an acceptable choice. He also says that at no time did he pressure the complainant into euthanasia.
The Investigative Committee said that Sessink never saw or treated the animal, but that Ulrich, the actual veterinarian, provided the appropriate care and even gave a free ultrasound on the house. If Sessink had no role in this at all other than supervising Ulrich, why would the complainant know who Sessink even was? Sessink's own response reads as though he was involved in the care of the dog and states he was the "consulting veterinarian on duty that evening." And if the other response is from Ulrich, why doesn't it make that clear? None of this seems particularly sensible, and it's not as though it's the first time VCA ARECA has had a complaint filed against it, far from it. In addition, one wonders if the complainant was in the state of mind to have consented to euthanasia, judging by his writings.
| Source: | November 11, 2019 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Brian Sessink | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| 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.