| Complaint: | Complaint 20-68 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Mark Soderstrom |
| Premises: | Superstition Animal Hospital |
The complainant tells us that Soderstrom was performing a femoral head ostectomy on his dog when he got a call from Soderstrom. He says that Soderstrom told him that a bone had broken during surgery and that it was likely cancer; Soderstrom's advice was to euthanize the dog. The complainant tells us that there had been no sign of bone cancer prior to the surgery so he had his dog put back together. Soderstrom is said to have told him that there was definitely some underlying issue. The bone ended up not healing and the leg had to be amputated. The complainant believes that Soderstrom did a bad job with the surgery leading to months of pain and suffering for his dog.
Soderstrom's response gives medical details about the case. He says that when he told the complainant about what happened, he offered biopsy with repair, amputation, and euthanasia as options. Pathology results indicated necrosis but no sign of neoplasia in the bone, and there was a soft tissue sarcoma removed elsewhere at the same time. He tells us that he repeatedly offered his services and willingness to help but that the complainant eventually elected to take the dog elsewhere.
It appears from the findings of fact that the dog's amputated leg was sent out for a pathology report. It also appears that nobody could really make head or tail of that either, though cancer doesn't come into the discussion much; there was definitely a lot of bone necrosis but it doesn't read as though they thought there was bone cancer. It somewhat reads as though the pathologists didn't know what to make of the dog's leg either but they did like to throw a lot of big words at it.
The Investigative Committee said that it would have taken a lot of force and "excessive rotation" for Soderstrom to have broken the leg during the operation. They also felt that the procedure he used was acceptable and that the leg didn't heal as the result of some other underlying issue. There doesn't appear to be a discussion of why the complainant was left with the belief Soderstrom was recommending euthanizing the dog on the operating table, particularly since it turns out the dog didn't have cancer.
According to the Internet Archive for Soderstrom Veterinary Surgery, "Soderstrom's professional interests include medical and surgical neurology and oncologic and general surgery." He does not appear to have any board certifications, but as far back as 2016 it states that he was pursuing board certification by the American College of Veterinary Surgeons. As of 2022 I can't get his name to come up on the ACVS site, so perhaps that hasn't panned out.
| Source: | July 7, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Mark Soderstrom | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | August 8, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| 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.