The complainant says that Kern killed his dog. His family boarded their dog with
Kern while they were out of state for the weekend. He says that his dog was up to
date with all vaccines and always boarded their dog with a vet because they felt
safer doing so. When he called for an update he was told that the dog was doing
well but not eating much. He says that he replied that may be normal since the
dog was in a new place. He woke up in the middle of the night to a voicemail
from Kern saying that he needed to call. He called and got someone he believes
was the overnight kennel attendant. She told him that his dog was dead. He was
eventually able to have follow-up conversations with Kern where he learned that
his dog had been vomiting and eventually "took a turn for the worse" after Kern
had went home for the day. He says Kern also told him that his dog had been
struggling for a while and she didn't know why. He told her that he wanted a
necropsy performed at a location of his choice (he eventually chooses Midwestern).
She tells him that she had already placed the dog's body in a freezer (but it
turns out the body should have been in a fridge). He has difficulty arranging the
necropsy as Midwestern only performs necropsies for veterinarians and has to get
Kern to set things up. He eventually learns that his dog died from bloat. He says
that he never did receive the full necropsy report from Kern. He also says that
she never bothered to contact the emergency number or even let him know there
was anything wrong with his dog.
Kern's response is very brief. It mentions some of the same things the complainant
reports and says that the dog was actually doing quite well until he didn't. She
states that the dog had some minor episodes of vomiting and lack of bowel movements,
but that things really got going after the dog vomited and had black stools. One
of the staff noticed this, took the dog out of his kennel, and the dog was said to be
dead within minutes. She spoke with the complainant and then took the frozen corpse
to Midwestern University for a Christmas Eve necropsy. She says that "while he was
boarding, he showed no overt clinical signs of any medical condition."
The Investigative Committee said that Kern tried to say that she had no valid
veterinarian-client relationship in this case as the dog was only being boarded.
The Committee states that the boarding is part of the clinic and that she was
prescribing treatments for the dog. Kern apparently told the Committee that she did
not give the complainants a copy of the necropsy report because she was not their
regular veterinarian, despite the fact she was the veterinarian who had to order the
necropsy. That said, they also thought the dog was going to die no matter what. The
Investigative Committee found three violations including gross incompetence. The Board
found her guilty of violations including gross neglience. Their order requires her to
cease practicing veterinary medicine within 60 days, refrain from renewing her license
at the end of the year, and not apply for a new license for five years.
This might be a good time to go back and look at all the other complaints regarding
Kern and East Mesa Animal Hospital in a new light. Perhaps if the veterinary board
had taken those more seriously this dog wouldn't have been dissected on Christmas
Eve.
ARS 32-2232 (21) as it relates to AAC R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to perform an exam on the dog prior to staff administering a vaccine.
ARS 32-2232 (8) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (8) failure to provide a copy of the dog's necropsy report to the pet owner within 10 days after request.
ARS 32-2232 (11) gross incompetence failure to perform an exam on the dog to investigate the cause of the dog's vomiting before instructing staff to administer multiple doses of milk of bismuth; Respondent also exhibited professional misconduct for failing to call the emergency contact left by the pet owner when the dog was showing signs of distress.
Result:
Passed
Board Motion: Offer consent agreement and modify conclusions of law
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (21) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-502 (L) (4) failure to perform an exam on the dog prior to staff administering a vaccine.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (18) as it relates to A.A.C. R3-11-501 (8) failure to provide a copy of the dog’s necropsy report to the pet owner within 10 days after request.
A.R.S. § 32-2232 (11) gross negligence failure to perform an exam on the dog to investigate the cause of the dog’s vomiting before instructing staff to administer multiple doses of milk of bismuth; Respondent also exhibited professional misconduct for failing to call the emergency contact left by the pet owner when the dog was showing signs of distress.
Penalties:
No later than 60 days after the effective date of the Consent Agreement, Respondent shall not practice under her license.
Respondent's license, No. 0781, shall by rule expire on December 31, 2022.
Respondent agrees not to renew her license.
Respondent agrees not to submit any type of new license application to the Board for a minimum of five (5) years.
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.