| Complaint: | Complaint 20-99 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Bernard Mangone |
| Premises: | Palm Glen Animal Hospital |
The complainants say that they paid for a veterinarian to see their sick puppy, not just a veterinary technician. They say they only spoke with Mangone for about 30 seconds when he informed them of a positive Parvo test. Mangone allegedly told them they could either have the dog admitted to the hospital or treat the dog at home. They say he never did examine the dog and they never saw him again. The complainants say a veterinary technician was left doing literally everything, and that when they pressed her about other possible options, she told them that the treatment they were giving was the best one. They say she eventually left to deal with another customer's emergency. (It appears based on other notes the dog died at home the next day.)
Mangone apparently has two related responses, each about half a page. He tells us that the Parvo test was a strong positive so he went out to explain the situation and offer either hospitalization or outpatient treatment. He says he warned them outpatient treatment was far riskier. He says he forgot to find his personal protective gear, went back into the hospital to get it, and then forgot the complainants were in the parking lot. During this time he says the complainants spoke with other staff and elected to take the dog home. He says that 30 to 45 minutes later he realized he never went back to talk to them but by that time they were gone. On the second page he seems a bit more contrite, stating that it was a failure and that in their efforts to deal with the coronavirus they let the patient down. He also says that he should have called to talk to the complainants once they left but he never did.
The Investigative Committee said there were many recordkeeping problems and omissions, also stating that coronavirus alone didn't excuse the problems. They also said that Mangone had multiple opportunities to follow up but didn't and that they also had some concerns the complainants weren't aware of how serious the parvo diagnosis was. They didn't find any concerns with the medical aspects of the case though they helpfully suggest that Mangone could have offered to just euthanize the dog (?!). They found several medical records violations that the Board later threw out on the grounds that they didn't affect patient care. The Board did send him a letter of concern.
| Source: | September 9, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Bernard Mangone | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Bernard Mangone | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Darren Wright |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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 | Aye |
| 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.