| Complaint: | Complaint 20-67 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Karin Burns |
| Premises: | Priority Pet Hospital |
The complainant (perhaps a former Arizona legislator?) writes that his dog underwent a dental with Burns at Priority Pet Hospital. He tells us that the dental itself was uneventful but that the dog had severe respiratory problems after the dental. He states there were significant problems resulting from aspiration after the dental was completed and that there's an undocumented period of three hours after the dental was concluded. He also says that removal of the endotracheal tube must have occurred too early and violates a relevant passage in the Arizona Administrative Code. The dog is said to have survived after a transfer to Arizona Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Center, though the dog was in such poor condition he believed at the time that the dog wouldn't survive the trip there. He also tells us that he sued Priority Pet Hospital over the matter and had an out-of-state veterinarinan (Eugene Borman) testify regarding the inadequate care provided to the dog; however it appears the judge in question threw out Borman's testimony because Borman had not read Arizona's Veterinary Practice Act. He includes Borman's statement and AAHA guidelines on anesthesia.
Burns' response states that the dog was well-monitored and assisted by top-quality veterinary personnel. She also states that the dog survived after the transfer to AVECCC (which gets somewhat short shrift in this account relative to the complaint) and that right aspiration pneumonia was always a risk. She tells us that she stands behind the quality of care provided by the clinic, then goes on to make a few claims of her own. She says that the complaint was only filed after the court threw out the complainant's lawsuit. She also says that the complainant's expert witness, Borman, is a stepfather of the complainant or his spouse and that Borman admitted he never practiced veterinary medicine in Arizona. She also ignores most of what Borman actually wrote and focuses on a single sentence stating that "a review is warranted." She concludes by stating that the case has been reviewed by Jeffrey Steurer, an Arizona veterinarian, and that Steurer gave her care a clean bill of health; she points out that Steurer, unlike Borman, is licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the state.
It appears the Investigative Committee didn't want to touch this one with the proverbial ten-foot pole. You'd think that a case involving two different expert witnesses coming to markedly different conclusions about veterinary practice would have generated some interesting discussions, but it appears not. We have only one sentence: "The Committee discussed that there was documented evidence in the medical record to support the dog was cared for appropriately."
Burns' expert witness/reviewer, Jeffrey Steurer, likely had significant insight on how to back up Burns during the investigation; he was investigated along with a colleague in 18-49.
| Source: | June 6, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Karin Burns | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Recused |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| 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.