The complainant tells us that his dog had been taken to Carlton numerous times over
a five-month period. He says these visits incurred total charges approaching $1000
but the dog's primary complaint, a severe red rash on her stomach, remained unsolved.
He states that they finally gave up and went to another veterinarian to try something
different which cost an additional $265.46. He concludes by stating that Carlton's
care was not effective and suggested a shotgun approach; he also believes he's entitled
to some reimbursement.
Carlton states that he only saw the dog on some of the visits, whereas his associate
Temkin saw the dog on other occasions. He does note that he is the managing veterinarian
for the facility (which may or may not be the same thing as the responsible veterinarian?).
He details some of the dog's visits and states that the complainants told him that the
dog was doing better after prescribing Apoquel. However, the dog was said to be itching
again on the next visit, at which point he prescribed Cytopoint injections. He also says
that referrals to a specialist or a dermatologist were recommended but the complainant
never followed through on those. He also says that the witness listed by the complainant
was never in his office for any of the visits and could not provide any information to
the Board. He concludes that he's proud of the care provided by his hospital and that it
holds up to AAHA standards.
The Investigative Committee states that "skin cases can be difficult," especially ones
like this. They also found that the complainants may not have had realistic expectations
about the problem being cured. The Committee also had unrelated concerns about the use
of Optimmune to treat the dog's eye problem, though this doesn't appear to have been on
the actual complaint; they were so concerned that they found a violation on that basis.
They also found a medical recordkeeping violation as they said it was hard to tell what
the dog was actually being treated for even though the medical care was sound. (Could
that be suggestive of a "shotgun" approach as the complainant suggested? Maybe the notes
are unclear because they just didn't know.) The Board rounded down to a recordkeeping
violation but there doesn't appear to be a letter in the file stating that they disagreed
with the Investigative Committee. Carlton had to pay a $100 fine.
ARS 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L) (5) failure to document the tentative or definitive diagnosis on March 18, 2019, March 25, 2019 and April 4, 2019.
ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures fornot performing diagnostics prior to dispensing Optimmune on March 18, 2019.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2233 (B) (3) minor records violations that are routine entries into a medical record and that do not affect the diagnosis or care of the animal.
Penalties:
Civil penalty ($100)
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.