| Complaint: | Complaint 20-42 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Virginia Kern |
| Premises: | East Mesa Animal Hospital |
The complainant says that she took her dog to Kern for a dental cleaning. She arrived at the scheduled pickup time and was told the dog was still in surgery because of an emergency. She asked how long her dog had been in surgery and at length got an answer of approximately two hours. She waited in the lobby and got a phone call from the clinic while in their lobby regarding her dog; they recommended one of the teeth be dealt with by an oral surgeon. She was then told that her dog was awake and alert and doing fine by several staff members and by Kern. The dog was finally released to her after one of the staff members, Danny, told her that the dog's vitals had not been checked because she didn't give them enough time to do so. Her dog was actually very sedate and in a stupor, having to be lugged into the car. Her dog refused to drink water all night long and required a follow-up visit with the dog's previous veterinarian. The complainant concludes that the entire situation seemed very concerning, particularly as Kern allegedly had four complaints at the Board already.
Kern's response mostly contains medical minutiae of little import to the actual complaint. She claims that the complainant wanted the dog discharged sooner than she would have preferred and that the dog was actually standing and walking when presented to the complainant. She also says that the complainant came back in and wanted a discount on the dental but was told that they didn't give discounts; Kern says that the complainant was told that if she was dissatisfied with the care, she didn't have to pay the bill.
The Investigative Committee appears to have said that the dog's poor recovery was more to do with the complainant wanting the dog returned to her too soon. They also said that just because the dog did well on previous anesthetic procedures it was no reason to expect this one would go well. In the end, it was all the fault of the complainant for wanting her dog returned to her too soon.
| Source: | January 1, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Virginia Kern | 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.