| Complaint: | Complaint 20-60 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Andrea Estrada Stickland |
| Premises: | Animal Medical Center of Chandler |
The complainant says she took her to Stickland for a dental. She fully expected that some teeth would have to be pulled out. She says that the dog was taken in for a dental and that she didn't learn until the dental was over that 22 teeth needed to come out. She has concerns about how this was handled. She also says that the dog went blind within a month. The complainant notes that she never met Stickland as she took over from another vet before the dental and had her interact with veterinary technicians after the dental. She believes that Stickland relies on her veterinary technicians to keep her out of trouble.
Stickland tells us that the dog came in for not chewing food. She diagnosed significant periodontal disease and also noted mature cataracts in the dog. Once the dog was out of the dental Stickland says she called the complainant. She told her of the number of teeth that had been removed and explained it was because of periodontal disease, noting that the dog still had quite a few teeth left. She states there were subsequent problems with getting in touch with the complainant because the complainant's voice mail wasn't set up. The complainant is said to have no concerns at the time and even left a positive review for her clinic on social media. The dog came back after the complainant called and allegedly left an angry message that the dog's ears weren't treated during the original visit. A follow-up visit investigated the ears and the dog's "inability to find her bacon," leading to discussion of allergies. Stickland says the complainant was always very assertive and angry which made taking care of her dog a challenge.
The Investigative Committee states that there were no concerns from the complainant about the care her dog received. They also thought the blindness could be the result of mature cataracts noted by Stickland. It also sounds like behind the scenes there were problems with getting the dog's x-rays from the procedure, leading to the complainant thinking the x-rays were never done (she was apparently told they weren't done according to a note in the findings of fact). We also learn something that wasn't in the original complaint. Apparently the dog couldn't bark after the procedure and nobody has any idea as to why: "[I]t is not clear why the dog could not bark after the dental procedure. The Committee felt if there had been damage to the dog's throat as a result of the dental procedure, there would likely have been more clinical signs." There's no word on whether the dog ever got her bark back.
| Source: | June 6, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Andrea Estrada Stickland | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Absent |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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.