| Complaint: | Complaint 20-44 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | William Linney |
| Premises: | Linney Surgery and Consulting |
The complainant's dog broke her ankle and was seen at Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic. They recommended an independent contractor, Linney, who did surgeries at their facility. The complainant went ahead with the surgery. She states that the recovery was problematic, involving a splint that she later learned was incorrect, along with some interesting things like open wounds that were exposing what appeared to be bone. Linney allegedly told her that the dog was healing up just fine. She also learned the pin from the surgery was working its way out and needed to be removed. The dog's heel also developed a large blister that oozed a lot. It turns out that at this time Linney started to be absent from Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic and finally stopped working there altogether. The complainant had to take her dog to Colorado Springs to get someone to fix the problem. One thing they found in Colorado Springs was a random wire left in the dog's heel that apparently had no purpose. The surgery was redone in Colorado and the dog was healing.
Linney's response states that his surgery was straight out of a textbook. He states that he discussed the risk of complications with the complainant. He also says that the dog developed skin problems after the surgery and that the dog's problems may largely have stemmed from the complainant's lack of compliance with care and rehab. He notes that the staff at Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic did a great job. He says that the complications led to him warning the complainant that the surgery may need to be repeated. During his last conversations with the complainant he says the complainant was happy. He also laments that the surgeon in Colorado did not attempt to contact him regarding the case. He also challenges the complainant's claims that he was not available or no longer practicing at the clinic.
The Investigative Committee discussed that there may have been concerns regarding the overall stability of the joint prior to surgery and whether the correct surgery was used. They also had concerns about the way the surgical procedure was conducted, particularly the wire that was put in there to hold things together; it appears that it did in fact not, and that a postoperative x-ray could have helped verify that. They also had concerns that Linney apparently told them he was satisfied. They found a violation of medical incompetence but the Board threw it out.
| Source: | February 2, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| William Linney | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (22) Medical incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine due to improper placement of cerclage wire and incorrect radiograph interpretation of the post-op radiographs on December 13, 2018; not recommending removal of the cerclage wire that was serving no purpose when a draining tract was present on April 1, 2019; and not performing a culture. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | June 6, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| William Linney | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| 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.