The complainant says her cat had some vomiting and diarrhea and took her cat to
Kain for an exam. Kain allegedly recommended fluids for the diarrhea and Cerenia
for vomiting, also running some tests. She also asked Kain for recommendations
on cat food that wouldn't upset the cat's stomach. The cat was lethargic at home,
but the complainant attributed this to Kain's warning that Cerenia can cause some
drowsiness. She spoke with Kain over the weekend and into the following Monday at
which time they brought the cat back in as she was not doing well. She explicitly
stated she didn't want the cat to be given more Cerenia and wanted to be
called prior to any other medications. Kain allegedly called her and discussed
Cerenia again along with some other medications. Kain also mentioned x-rays and
the complainant says she wanted them done and sent to a radiologist. She called
back later that day and was told to expect a call from Kain. Kain called back
and said the cat was doing badly and needed to be taken to an emergency facility
for 24-hour care. She says she was hit up for payment upon arrival and didn't
have a chance to review the charges until later; she discovered that the cat
had actually been given Cerenia and a variety of other drugs without permission.
She also says that Kain hadn't sent off the x-rays to a radiologist as requested.
She tells us that Kain said she wouldn't give a refund because her boyfriend was
outside protesting about the now-dead cat. The complainant ends with a bulleted
list of concerns about the treatment of her cat including but not limited to the
Cerenia, also involving concerns about ultrasounds, medications, misreported
blood test values, and difficulty getting records.
Kain's response is written largely from the perspective of conversations she
had with the complainant and her mother. She says that the complainant called
the clinic's emergency line about her cat vomiting and not eating well; according
to her the complainant said she had been busy with work but wanted to wait until
the next morning to have the cat seen on a non-emergency basis. The cat was found
to be somewhat lethargic but this was allegedly normal for the cat when at the
clinic; she says she ran blood tests, gave some Plasma-Lyte and Cerenia, and sent
the cat home. The next day the complainant allegedly called the emergency number
because the cat was worse; she says the complainant read that Cerenia was bad
online and that she tried to educate her about how safe it was. She also says she
gives Cerenia to her cat twice a month when her cat vomits and that none of the
owners she gives Cerenia to have noted a problem in their cats either. She contends
the Cerenia helped this cat as well. The next day the cat was dropped off in the
morning and several procedures were done including a barium study; the barium
study suggested ileus, foreign body, pancreatitis, or an upper respiratory infection.
She says that she discussed options other than Cerenia. The cat didn't improve under
her care, so she told the complainant to transfer the cat to Animal Medical and
Surgical Center that evening. She says on her way home she got an angry call from
the complainant's mother about the case; she told her that she could not discuss
the details without permission and hung up. She also says that Skaggs, the emergency
veterinarian, called and spoke with her; she says he also attempted to educate the
complainant that Cerenia did not cause the problem. She relates that the complainant
and her mother came to the clinic several times to complain, that the complainant
asked for discounts or refunds, and that the complainant's boyfriend was outside the
clinic protesting. She called the sheriff on him, and the sheriff allegedly told him
he could stand outside the property line and not talk to anybody.
The Investigative Committee basically said that nobody knows, even after the fact,
what was wrong with the cat; they throw out a heart condition as a possibility
as the radiographs were finally reviewed externally and found nothing. They said
there was no reason to believe Cerenia caused the cat's death and that Kain said
she wouldn't have given it if she'd known the complainant didn't want it. They voted
to dismiss with no violations. The Board, on the other hand, voted to find seven
violations; these includes multiple medical records violations as well as disregarding
the complainant's request to avoid Cerenia. Kain was given six hours of continuing
education and required to pay a $150 penalty.
(This is another one that seems weird. There have been other similar cases
(19-94 comes to mind) where pets have been given medication
despite a request not to do so. I don't recall anyone ever really believing the
complainant or finding it a concern if they did. In nearly all such situations,
veterinarians tend to get a lot of deference from the investigators and from the
Board. It would be interesting to learn why in this case the complainant's request
was actually considered to be valid; maybe there's something in the Board discussion,
or maybe they were afraid of her boyfriend showing up with a picket sign.)
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) for failure fo provide courteous verbal and written interchange and considerate treatment by disregarding the pet owner's request to not give the cat Cerenia on November 18, 2019 and not providing the pet owner a complete copy of the cat’s medical record.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L)(4) for failure to document in the animal’s medical record the results of an exam, including the general condition.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L)(5) failure to document in the animal's medical record the animal's tentative or definitive diagnosis.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (M)(1) for failure to permanently label the name of the animal owner on the radiograph.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (M)(2) for failure to permanenily label the name of the animal on the radiograph.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (M)(3) for failure fo permanently label the date the radiograph was taken on the radiograph.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (M)(4) for failure to permanenily label the veterinarian or veterinary medical premises on the radiograph.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (3 hours in medical record keeping)
Continuing education (3 hours in client communications)
Civil penalty ($150)
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.