| Complaint: | Complaint 20-54 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jeannie Kinney |
| Premises: | Oak Creek Clinic |
The complainant tells us that she took one of her dogs to Kinney to have a couple of growths removed. She wanted a growth on the inner leg removed and Kinney recommended removing a second growth near the waist. Kinney is described as a "professed cancer dog veterinarian" who was recommended by one of the complainant's friends, a veterinary technician. She went to pick up the dog after surgery and was told the dog's chest x-ray and blood work had come back perfect; she waited to see the dog who was now wobbly and crying after the operation. She says she was sent home with gabapentin and an antibiotic. The dog initially did well aside from blood oozing from the surgical wound; her mobility issues progressed to not being able to walk on her hind legs. The complainant's veterinary technician friend apparently suggested a neurological problem or a stroke. The complainant was directed to bring the dog back in but she was unsure what good that would do; Kinney later phoned her and said to reduce the gabapentin dose. The complainant took it upon herself to attempt to wean the dog off the gabapentin as the dog became unable to urinate without assistance and finally was paralyzed except for some head motion. The dog also vomited. Early the next morning the dog took her last breath and died. The complainant notes that the dog had very similar surgery with another veterinarian and did just fine; she believes the apparent neurological symptoms that led to the dog's death were caused by the gabapentin. It also appears she even called her regular veterinarian to ask about advice for doing an autopsy.
Kinney's response tells us that the complainant brought her dog in for cancer surgery. She recommended the complainant take the dog to a specialist, but the complainant wasn't able to afford one. She also relates that the complainant wanted to do surgery as soon as possible but didn't want to order all the tests necessary; she says she went ahead and did histopathology at her own expense, discovering that the growths were mast cell tumors. The complainant is said to have been happy with the surgery and reported that the dog was doing well; once the complainant reported the dog was having issues walking, Kinney said she was too busy to speak on the phone but could see the dog in person. She also states she was the person to mention gabapentin as a possible cause of the hind limb weakness. She states that if anyone is responsible for the dog's death it would be the complainant for not bringing the dog back. She also says that she offered to have a necropsy done at the University of Arizona (at the complainant's expense, of course) but was turned down and elected to cremate the dog. She also suggests a stroke, a clot, or a blown disc in a "diseased spine," but that gabapentin is known to be totally safe and learned a lot from Arizona-based veterinary anesthesiologist Victoria Lukasik. Kinney concludes by stating she is "not a boastful clinician," but then goes on to state that her commitment is obvious in light of all the patients she sees, the long hours she works, her efforts at continuing education, her standards of care, and her ethics (perhaps it might help if someone gifted Kinney a dictionary?). On the other hand, she says the complainant is "grieving, angry and responsible, cognitively unable to understand the science, and emotionally unable to be objective."
The Investigative Committee said the main complaint was the gabapentin but that they had no necropsy to study (in fairness, one wonders how the complainant would afford it, and it also appears that the complainant told the investigators Kinney never offered one). The Committee also said that gabapentin can in fact cause hind limb weakness but not all the symptoms reported here, basically concluding that just about anything could have killed the dog. They put their money on mast cell degranulation syndrome, which they believe Kinney could have stopped if she had been able to see the dog. One wonders if Kinney ever warned the complainant to watch for this or noted it when asking for the dog to come back. They also surmise that the gabapentin potentially making the dog not walk might have made it more likely for the dog to throw a clot, but even if so that would not be Kinney's fault; gabapentin is overall very safe so it's no biggie.
| Source: | February 2, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Jeannie Kinney | 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: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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.