| Complaint: | Complaint 20-88 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Melissa Mazur |
| Premises: | VetMed |
The complainants say they were referred to VetMed from their vet at Banfield because their dog was showing signs of anemia. Mazur allegedly told them that the dog was indeed anemic and that the dog's liver was enlarged and full of masses. The complainants say they asked if there was anything they could do but were told the dog was too sick for any testing and could pass at any time. They take the dog back to their car to come home and die peacefully but one of the complainants apparently went back in to ask how much euthanasia would be. At this time the complainant became frustrated as the dog had been healthy and asked if Mazur was sure nothing else could be done considering he had $5000 that could be used to treat the dog. Mazur allegedly came back with a $4000 estimate that even included line items like testing for Lyme Disease. The complainant says they wanted to bring the dog back in to hospitalize and treat, but they instead took the dog to 1st Pet where Greene did an ultrasound and found no masses. It appears he identified an infection and the dog was recovering well. The complainants say that if they had not decided to take the dog home to die, and then seek out other help, their dog would have been euthanized for no reason. They also say they have reviewed the records from VetMed and much of what they were told that night was not in the records.
Mazur's account is quite different. She discusses the initial workup and does confirm that she informed the complainants the dog had liver masses. She also says that she discussed her concern for the dog's quality of life if the dog decompensated quickly (that's veterinarian-speak for hinting at doing euthanasia). However, she claims that she discovered she had confused the dog's ultrasound with another dog's ultrasound while writing up an estimate for the complainants. She says that she immediately went back in and corrected herself, coming up with a new plan for the dog. She says that the complainant had alread decided to take the dog home at this point, but on a follow-up call said they had no questions. Mazur concludes that everything they did was medically appropriate and that while she regrets the initial confusion, "medical care was not compromised in any way due to this honest mistake."
The Investigative Committee said that Mazur made an "honest mistake" (exactly the same words she used in her response) and that "we are all human." They also say the records show no liver issues in the dog because it was actually the other dog that had liver issues. That seems to even directly contradict Mazur's response when she said that the "liver was enlarged" even without masses, also stating that "liver failure" was still on her list of differential diagnoses even after making the mistake.
One question is that if Mazur really came in and explaned her mistake why did the complanants still think the dog had liver masses until Greene did a second ultrasound and found none?
| Source: | August 8, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Melissa Mazur | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| 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.