| Complaint: | Complaint 20-61 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Brad Barnett |
| Premises: | Prestige Animal Clinic |
| Related: | 20-62 |
The complainant took her dog to Prestige Animal Hospital for a routine dental. She notes the discharge was thorough and the bill included a single dental radiograph. The next day the complainant says the dog still had swelling on the left side of her head. She continued the medications, but the swelling continued and within two days the dog had what she describes as a "huge lump" on the top of her head and behind her eye. She says that they went back and forth with the veterinarians at Prestige for the next nine days. The complainant tried a different veterinarian who requested the dog's records, but it appears that no records were included regarding this particular dental or follow-up visits. Two years later the dog has another dental at the new veterinarian and an impacted root was identified from the previous dental. The complainant states that she believes the dog had an abscess from a non-sterile operating environment, that the dog's medical records intentionally had omissions, and that the dog had a painful root left in because the veterinarians couldn't read the radiographs.
Barnett's response states that he no longer works at Prestige Animal Clinic and therefore has no access to much of the information. He tells us that sixteen teeth were removed during the dental and that some extraction sites were left open to drain. He states that some blood was discovered during extubation so he prescribed a ten-day course of antibiotics. He says the complainant said the dog was doing well but called back three days later stating that the dog had an elevated third eyelid that led to swelling around the eye. His colleague, Carter, is said to have prescribed additional medication and handled a follow-up visit for the suspected abscess. He states that a subsequent follow-up call found the dog to be "doing great" and that shortly thereafter he was no longer employed at Prestige.
The Investigative Committee said that the dog was doing well for two years until the root was identified, so in reality it wasn't a big deal. They said that the swelling reported by the complainant was above the eyeball rather than below the eyeball, so the root had nothing to do with it. They also said that if the root had been causing problems there would have been an abscess; rather, the root was a "coincidental" finding. They did say that the medical records "could have been better" but that it wasn't a violation.
| Source: | June 6, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Brad Barnett | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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.