The complainants say their dog hurt his leg badly and needed to get to a vet. The
only one that could see the dog was the Veterinary Emergency and Specialty Center
of Northern Arizona. Wassef examined the dog and said it was a cruciate ligament
injury and verified the diagnosis using x-ray. They say they asked about treatment
options and were told there were two types of surgery costing between $2500 and
$5000. They say that a decade ago they had a dog that had a similar problem, went
through surgery, but was always in pain and had difficulties thereafter. Wassef
allegedly said that is actually common and that the dog may need another surgery in
a few years. Based on that, they asked about amputation and Wassef said it was also
an option. Wassef allegedly explained that cutting off the leg would prevent the
dog from shifting weight to the other leg (?). Apparently Wassef made it sound as
though the decision needed to be made soon so the complainant chose amputation.
Their normal veterinarian, Jacoby, learned of this after the fact and was not happy.
He told her that the dog would likely have done reasonably well without surgery,
that with surgery the prognosis was quite good as surgery had improved in the past
decade, and that for the $5,728 that the complainant paid for amputation a boarded
orthpedic surgeon could have worked on the leg. Jacoby allegedly called around to
other veterinarians who also said they wouldn't have amputated in that situation.
The complainants say if they had known these facts they would never have amputated.
They also say she believes Wassef pushed for amputation because it was something he
could do there and pad his wallet as opposed to referring the dog elsewhere. They
also say if the dog hurts his other leg he'll have to be put down.
Wassef begins by thanking the board for the extension of time he was given to
respond to this complaint (exactly the same as in 20-114 three months later).
Wassef's response gives a brief introduction to the dog's initial exam. He then
goes into attack mode regarding Jacoby, saying that Jacoby has consistent been
rude, racist, and condescending. He says that Jacoby's been so mean that he asked
Jacoby to never send patients to his clinic; he says it's no big deal because they
can just go to another clinic less than a mile from his. He says that any time he
sees a patient of Jacoby's he warns them that Jacoby doesn't like him and suggests
that they can go elsewhere for care. He says he told the complainant this on her
visit as well. Wassef says that he actually told the complainants that surgery had
a good success rate, particularly with the surgeons he sends the dogs to. He says
it was actually one of the complainants who discussed amputation and said "let's"
take the leg off." Wassef claims they were cost-conscious and concerned about the
cost of the surgery. Wassef says that it was all the complainants' idea and that
he told them he could cut the leg off the next day. He concludes by stating that
he believes Jacoby put them up to filing the complaint, referencing a veterinary
board complaint (05-10) in which Jacoby allegedly failed to show respect to other
veterinarinans and had to take an anger management program for eight weeks.
The Investigative Committee largely takes Wassef's side on this. They said that the
complainants were the ones who brought up amputation. They also said that Wassef
attempted to discuss other treatment options (which is technically true, but the
complainants seem to believe Wassef was telling them they wouldn't turn out well).
"Some Committee members" apparently thought Wassef could have held off on the
amputation considering it was such an extreme option. In the end, the investigators
said that the complainants made the decision and that they were happy with it at
the time; some of them also had concerns about Jacoby's "possible unprofessional
conduct." The investigators found no violations but the Board sent a letter of
concern to Wassef regarding communication issues.
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.