| Complaint: | Complaint 20-97 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Ryan Lunt |
| Premises: | 1st Pet Veterinary Centers Phoenix |
The complainants say their dog was vomiting blood. As their normal veterinarian wasn't open they took their dog to 1st Pet. They couldn't go in because of coronavirus restrictions but the dog was taken in. They waited for two hours before a veterinarian called to ask some questions and come up with an estimate. Half an hour later they had still not gotten an estimate so they called back. Someone came out with an estimate that included a $140 fee for an initial examination, but by now the entire parking lot was full and they just asked for their dog back. Their regular veterinarian was now open and said the dog could be seen there, but the complainants state they were told they couldn't get their dog back without paying the $140 exam fee. They asked the staff member where the report on their dog was since the dog was allegedly examined and was told there was none; the staff member also appeared to refer to the dog as male despite the dog actually being female. The complainants say the family veterinarian also never received any records. The family veterinarian allegedly asked to speak with a manager at 1st Pet and was told none was available. He also allegedly suggested the complainants report 1st Pet to the veterinary board.
Lunt, the responsible veterinarian for the premises and a repeat performer before the Board, has a rather short response. He says that the dog was in fact examined by Wachtel, another repeat performer, who then spoke with the complainants on the phone. Lunt says that they always send someone out to collect payment before the pet is discharged. He says that this made the complainants feel the pet was being held until payment was received. He then says that the dog was brought out (after the complainants paid, of course) and "he was allowed to go to his RDVM." (Note that even Lunt gets the gender wrong on the dog, see the complainants' note above.)
The Investigative Committee says that the complainants were unhappy with the exam fee and the time they had to wait. (I would note that it appears the complainants may not have even known they were going to get hit with that fee.) They also said that there would have been medical records to give the complainants if their dog had been treated at 1st Pet, but as they elected not to treat the dog there, they don't write up the records until later. They also say that the regular veterinarian wasn't listed in the records at 1st Pet which may have made the problem worse. They conclude there were no problems.
| Source: | September 9, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Ryan Lunt | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| 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.