| Complaint: | Complaint 20-52 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Melissa Johnson |
| Premises: | Power Road Animal Hospital |
The complainant says he brought his dog in as an emergency first thing in the morning but wasn't seen until early afternoon. The dog had not had a bowel movement in four days. He says he stressed to them to please save the dog, that he would throw up and that nobody could explain why. He states that they gave the dog enemas. The next day the complainant says the dog still wasn't going to the bathroom so he asked Johnson if the dog would be okay. He says that she told him yes and that they would see the dog the following Monday. The dog died on Sunday. The complainant relates that he saw his dog take his last breath and that his heart is heavy.
Johnson's response, which more than most has the tone of being written by a lawyer, states that the complainant omitted key facts. She states that the complainant had declined many recommendations for the dog's care. She says the dog was panting and that the complainant said the dog pants when he's stressed at the hospital. She also says the dog had a heart murmur and that the complainant said that's why the dog was never neutered. She says that the complainant agreed to x-rays and blood work which showed the dog was constipated and that the bladder and colon were displaced. She says he refused to allow an abdominal ultrasound or a radiology consult to learn more. She also says that the dog's panting and heart murmur made her concerned for heart disease, so she performed x-rays at no charge that were concerning for congestive heart failure. She says he also refused to send those off to a radiologist. We're told that a follow-up conversation with IDEXX led to a suspicion that the dog had a neurological condition preventing him from going to the bathroom. Johnson concludes by stating that the complainant was actually seen late in the morning rather than early in the afternoon. She also tells us that after his dog died, the complainant called up and used the f-word and the b-word when saying bad things about Johnson.
The Investigative Committee found that the enemas did not kill the dog. They state that the constipation was likely secondary to something else wrong with the dog. They tell us that the x-rays showed an enlarged heart and pulmonary edema, that the dog was overweight, that the dog may have had intra-abdominal fat or an abdominal mass. They don't touch on the IDEXX consultant's suggestion that the dog's problem was neurological. One's left with the opinion that literally nobody has any clue what was going on with this dog and likely wouldn't have even with additional work. In any event, the Committee said that the care provided was appropriate and that they weren't worried about the record omissions they found.
For another example of Johnson's winning customer relationship management skills, you can read 21-102; in that case, she admits to using a dog's insulin prescription as "leverage" to make the client bring him in for an overdue glucose test.
| Source: | February 2, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Melissa Johnson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.