| Complaint: | Complaint 20-41 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Heather Hendricks |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Chandler |
The complainant took her cat to 1st Pet and was seen by Hendricks. The cat had been vomiting and heaving. Hendricks told her there could be a string wrapped around the cat's tooth and suspected the string might be going all the way into the stomach and intestines; she was told the string could cause sawing. The complainant said that she wanted to see the string but was then told there was no string. Instead she says she was told that x-rays showed an area of "possible" obstruction and was apparently being pressured into agreeing to surgery. The complainant says she felt uncomfortable with Hendricks' behavior but elected not to perform the surgery at the time; she was forced to sign a waiver going against Hendricks' advice. She says she called the next day and was told that the radiologist read the x-ray and said there was no blockage. She reminded Hendricks that she wanted to cut her cat open and says Hendricks told her the surgery wasn't done because it wasn't necessary, contrary to events as remembered by the complainant. She points out that if that were the case they would not have made her sign a waiver. She concludes by stating that her cat could have gone through a very invasive surgery for no reason and feels she was being pressured into an unnecessary procedure so the hospital could make $3000 in a couple of hours.
Hendricks' response tells us that she suspected a possible linear foreign body and warned the complainant about the possible risks. She also says that the complainant was given an estimate on surgical costs if surgery were required, but that she never stated that surgery would be required; according to her the complainant said that she would not authorize surgery regardless of the results of tests. She says the complainant did sign a release for the sedation to examine the cat but never signed any waiver or Against Medical Advice form. Indeed, she says that she did not believe surgery was necessarily necessary at the time and that if she had, then she would definitely have made the complainant sign an Against Medical Advice form. She also says that the complainant's allegation that medical records had been altered was simply not true; in her own words, it "is impossible for a medical record to be altered after 24 hours of being created, according to AAHA and our hospital policy." (I would note that she doesn't say what checks actually enforce this, nor does she comment that the ideal time to alter it would have been the next day after the call, well within that 24 hour period as far as I can tell.)
The Investigative Committee says that the complainant wasn't given an Against Medical Advice form as she had thought. They also said all the problems were the result of poor communication and a very stressed pet owner.
If this sounds familiar, it's probably because of 20-05. That time an outsourced radiology report at 1st Pet identified a nonexistent blockage and made a pet go through an unnecessary surgery.
| Source: | January 1, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Heather Hendricks | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| 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 | Aye |
| 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.