The complainant says she took her dog to Santibanez because she was dehydrated and
barely responsive. She states her dog's eyes were closed shut from what was obviously
an infection. She had been giving the dog Pedialyte and Ensure at home. She says that
Santibanez barely examined the dog and ordered blood work that discovered anemia,
resulting in Santibanez giving the dog a vitamin B-12 shot. When asked about dehydration
she says he told her to just keep giving the Pedialyte and Ensure. The dog was sent home
with antibiotics and vitamins but deteriorated so much she began considering euthanasia. Her daughter was able to find another clinic that would accept payment plans and took the
dog there instead. The dog was put on fluids and subsequently diagnosed as diabetic but
survived on insulin. It appears the dog was found to be blind in at least one eye, likely
from the infection, with the other at risk. She believes Santibanez just wanted to hurry
through the exam because it was late the day.
Santibanez' response largely follows the same format as a veterinary complaint. He gives
us his history of the dog. He tells us that the complainant had been putting some kind
of gel into the dog's eyes but could not tell him what it was or for how long; he says
she also stopped using the gel and then started putting artificial tears in the dog's
eyes instead. He says the owner wasn't forthcoming with information about any of it.
He stated that as the blood work diagnosed anemia, he was concerned about starting the
dog on fluids; he also says that he limited some of the blood tests as a result of the
anemia. He said that the glucose level on his blood work was barely over the high end
of normal and ruled out diabetes; he felt anemia and autoimmune hemolytic anemia were
more likely. He attributes the eye infection or irritation to the complainant putting
stuff in the dog's eyes. He states he wanted to run additional tests for hemolytic
anemia but was turned down. He also says he offered a referral regarding the eyes but
was turned down for financial reasons. He states that he did in fact examine the dog
but attempts to be gentle so that he's not misunderstood; he also says that he can
prove his employees stayed later than usual to attempt to help the dog, and that his
clinic often attempts to provide discounted services even though they don't have
payment plans.
The Investigative Committee said that the blood work performed at Santibanez' clinic
didn't match the blood work five days later at the other clinic; they don't speak as
to why but suggest human error or a machine calibration issue as possibilities. They
also have concerns the dog wasn't given fluids and that no urinalysis was performed.
They also felt that the dog's eyes could have been better examined and treated. The
Committee found a single violation summing up many of their concerns. The Board
required Santibanez to take eight hours of continuing education and pay a $1000
civil penalty.
(For some reason they came down on Santibanez a
lot harder than they often do for other cases. Given the five-day interval between
the visit at Santis and the visit at Beardsley, it wouldn't be unheard of for the
investigators or the Board to just say that the dog's condition must have changed.
They could also have said that a urinalysis wasn't needed because at least at
Santibanez' clinic the blood glucose level was only slightly elevated. It would be
quite easy for them to handwave away all this as they often do in other cases, but
this time they didn't.)
ARS 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide current professional and scientific knowledge by not providing a complete evaluation of the dog, especially with respect to the eyes; not recommending a urinalysis due to the increased thirst and urination; and not offering ly or SQ fluids to a dog that was 10% dehydrated. Fluids would not have been detrimental in animal with a HCT of 22%.
A.R.S. ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide current professional and scientific knowledge by not providing a complete evaluation of the dog, especially with respect to the eyes; not recommending a urinalysis due to the increased thirst and urination; and not offering IV or SQ fluids to a dog that was 10% dehydrated.
Penalties:
Probation (1 year)
Continuing education (8 hours in internal medicine)
Civil penalty ($1000)
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.