The complainants (one of whom appears to have been a nurse) took their dog to BluePearl
Peoria for a gastric torsion shortly before 8 PM. McAdam met with the complainants and
hit them up for money no less than three times during the process. First she allegedly
asked if they could even afford the $5000 it would take to do the surgery. She ran an
x-ray to confirm the diagnosis of bloat. Rather than operate we're told she then suggested
doing a chest x-ray in case the dog had cancer and wasn't worth the money. They agreed
and paid even more money. No cancer was found and they decided to go with surgery, thus
paying some more money, for a total of $6,611.28. McAdam said that she would not be doing
the surgery but that another vet would be doing it. The complainants kissed their dog goodbye
not knowing it would be the final time, assuming the dog was going into surgery. They were
told they should go home and wait for a call. They never got a call so they phoned BluePearl
and learned their dog had still not been taken into surgery four hours later. Almost an hour
later they heard from McAdam who told them that the dog was in surgery but the dog's stomach
had lost all blood flow. One of the complainants asked McAdam what she would have expected
after waiting four hours to do surgery. McAdam allegedly hesitated and then said their procedures
needed reviewing. The complainants elected to euthanize the dog. They later learned that no
surgeon was on site and one had to be called in to do the surgery. They comment they could
have taken the dog to Tucson faster than BluePearl could obtain a surgeon. They also say
McAdam and Garza (a veterinary technician) lied to them and misrepresented the availability
of a surgeon and the nature of the delay in an attempt to cover up the matter. They state
the lack of a surgeon on site was confirmed by Astin Deem, the practice manager.
McAdam tells us that she performed a critical assessment of the dog for $550. She tells
us that x-rays confirmed bloat as expected. She says that she then wanted to know if the
dog had cancer (she didn't think the dog should go to surgery if there was cancer) and the
complainants agreed to that as well. She found no evidence of cancer and the complainants
wanted to do the surgery. She didn't have a surgeon available on site so she first called
Linney (the subject of 20-44) but he wasn't available. She says
she then started calling around to see if anyone could come in. Majoue (the subject of
complaint 20-69) said she could come in and get there at about
the same time McAdam could have suited up for surgery. She says the complainants had no
concerns about Majoue doing the surgery (note that their complaint was about the wait,
not the surgeon). She says that she poked her head in during surgery and learned the
dog's stomach was already dead.
The Investigative Committee leads off by stating that they were also concerned about the
time it took for the surgeon (Majoue) to start surgery, but that person was not named in
the complaint. They stated that they had no concerns with any events prior to Majoue
showing up, stating that there was evidence the credit card machines were set up for the
wrong time zone. They also said that McAdam should have noticed the dog was basically
doomed based on the lactate levels in the blood work (suggestive that the stomach was
already dying off) and that she could have been more aggressive in therapy. Some of the
discussion appears downright nonsensical at times, particularly about McAdam not saying
there was not a surgeon in the building and that at that point she might have been the
surgeon (despite the fact it appears she explicitly said she wouldn't be). The Committee
found two violations, though Hamilton found it acceptable that McAdam didn't tell the
complainants that no surgeon was on site. The Board threw it all out and only issued a
letter of concern.
(Side note: It almost reads like McAdam was trying to rack up bills for testing yet
find a reason not to operate on the dog. Perhaps that's because they had no surgeon
or just didn't feel like bothering with this one.)
ARS § 32-2232; (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to provide current professional and scientific knowledge in the care of the dog by not providing adequate fluid therapy for stabilization of a GDV patient.
ARS § 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) for failure to show respect to the pet owners for not being more informative with respect to the availability of a surgeon on site to perform the GDV surgery on the dog so the pet owners could make an informed decision regarding the care of their dog.
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.