The complainant took her cat to Pet Doctor for what she thought was a hairball.
She says that Conley did an x-ray and ran blood tests, diagnosing bronchitis. The
cat was given doxycycline and a Depo-Medrol injection. A week later she got a call
from Conley stating that the cat had Valley Fever (otherwise uncommon in cats) and
that a prescription had been phoned in to Acacia Apothecary and Wellness. The
complainant called the pharmacy and learned that the prescription was for a dog and
not a cat. She then directed them to call back and verify the prescription. She
says she later spoke with Tara Farrell who confirmed the dosage. A couple of weeks
later she took the cat to Pantano Animal Clinic but encountered difficulties getting
the records transferred from Conley's clinic. The veterinarian at Pantano, Quick,
said that they needed to get the cat's dosages down as they were three times the
recommended limits. The complainant finally had to drive to Pet Doctor just to get
copies of the records, at which point a manager, Priscilla Marin, told her there
were no records of her previous records requests. She also learned that Acacia
Apothecary and Wellness had changed the species information based on the dosage,
something the complainant says she reported to the pharmacy board as it would be
illegal to do so. The cat subsequently had to be seen by another vet at Pantano,
Lawton, who had to hospitalize the cat as the cat was too dehydrated to even be
able to draw blood.
Conley gives us a lot of background on the workup she did on the cat. She also
says that she thinks she only had one actual interaction with the complainant.
She states that she disputes that the prescription was "three times" the upper
limit of normal. She quotes from Companion Animal Formulary 10th Edition and
Plumb's Veterinary Drug Handbook 8th edition to justify her claim. She also says
that if Quick had really thought the dose was too high he would have stopped it
immediately rather than leaving the cat on it. She also devotes an entire
paragraph to explaining how Arizona veterinarinans don't actually follow many of
the guidelines regarding fluconazole because it's a special thing for them. To
her Valley Fever is a "niche and regional disease" that requires a "unique
response" that she says "may not be reflected in conventional drug formularies."
The Investigative Committee said that Conley didn't really have a good reason for
such a high dose of the drug. They also note that if she was going to do that she
should have done a better job of following up on the cat. They voted to find a
violation and the Board agreed. Conley was required to take three hours of
continuing education.
ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge; based on formularies reviewed, the cat was started on too high of a dose of fluconazole. If Respondent felt the dosage was necessary basedon the cat's condition, the prescription should have been for a shorter period of time and the cat rechecked sooner than six (6) months.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) for failure to use current professional and scientific knowledge; based on formularies reviewed, the cat was started on too high of a dose of fluconazole.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (3 hours in fungal disease and treatment)
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.