| Complaint: | Complaint 20-35 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Danica Dahlquist |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Phoenix |
| Related: | 20-36, 20-37, 20-38 |
The complainant took her cat to 1st Pet for an ear infection. She states that prior to the visit her cat was otherwise acting normally. They confirmed an ear infection and were able to clean the cat's ears but were unable to medicate the cat. Dahlquist recommended sedating the cat. The complainant says she asked what the risks were and was told that there were none unless the cat had an underlying cardiovascular issue. Dahlquist subsequently called her and informed her the cat was ready to be picked up. When she arrived, the cat was "very out of it" and was suffering from nasal discharge and coughing; Dahlquist had already left. At home the cat was unable to walk and coughing but 1st Pet said that was normal. Lunt saw the cat the next day and sent the cat home with antibiotics and fluids; the notes apparently mentioned the ear infection, unequal pupil sizes, and dehydration. A technician at 1st Pet saw the cat the next day as the cat was still unwell. The complainant was told if the cat's vitals were normal there was no need for a veterinarian. Another day elapsed and the cat was seen by a third veterinarian at 1st Pet, Toncray, who concluded that some unknown condition was now showing up from the previous visits. She says Toncray acted as though her cat was about to die and that she needed to spend $1200 to $2100 on the spot. She pointed out all these problems started after the first visit and Toncray suggested hepatic lipidosis and cancer as possiblities. He also recommended a specialist, but she couldn't afford it. She left the cat at 1st Pet and was told by a vet tech the cat was doing better; Toncray then called and told her that was not accurate and the cat was actually doing very bad. Wachtel then took over treating the cat and suggested a specialist as well. The complainant started a GoFundMe to raise money even though she says 1st Pet could not tell her how much it would cost or who the specialist would be. The complainant took her cat home and did the best she could until she came up with some money, at which point Greene (a specialist that occasionally works with 1st Pet) saw the cat. He diagnosed aspiration pneumonia. The cat improved and was seen at a regular veterinarian where they learned the cat was also now deaf, either as a result of the ear infection or the medication used to treat it. The complainant says she tried to take up her concerns with Lunt but was told that he was on vacation twice that month. She notes that the entire affair resulted in $2,410.19 in veterinary bills and a total of 10 veterinary visits across two hospitals.
Dahlquist's response is one paragraph. She concludes by stating that the sedation was reversed and the cat was sent home with a collar. She claims the recovery from sedation was uneventful.
The Investigative Committee said that it was surprising that nobody suggested aspiration pneumonia as a possibility early on. They had concerns regarding the cat being sent home while being unable to walk; they specifically state that the veterinary technician at 1st Pet says she stayed with the cat until the cat was walking but this is not the case. Some also had concerns about a medication for dogs being used in cats (the eardrops) but others didn't. They also had concerns that nobody asked if the cat had eaten (because of the potential for aspiration pneumonia) but also suggested that the cat vomited later and perhaps developed aspiration pneumonia then. They found two violations, one regarding off-label use of Claro (Butler opposed) and one regarding sending the cat home in such a condition. The Board had different ideas; they said that off-label medications are used all the time and that aspiration pneumonia was always a risk, clearing Dahlquist of any wrongdoing at all.
| Source: | January 1, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Danica Dahlquist | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Nay |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to Provide professionally acceptable procedures with respect to using the product, Claro, labeled for dogs only with no literature to suggest use off-label. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Danica Dahlquist | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures with respect to sending the cat home not fully recovered from sedation. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Danica Dahlquist | Respondent |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Recused |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| 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.