| Complaint: | Complaint 21-01 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Carlotta Groves |
| Premises: | ABC Vaccination Clinic |
The complainant tells us she took her dog to ABC Vaccination Clinic because she was pregnant. She says she provided the information she knew about her dog but was scolded as her dates didn't match the calculations the veterinarians made; this bothered her as she knew her dog was due very soon but they didn't seem to believe that. She claims she was also scolded for not feeding the dog the correct food. An x-ray was performed but the complainant says she was told they could only see one puppy and that it was too early to know much about the pregnancy; she was told to come back in a couple of weeks. The dog gave birth four days later. The complainant concludes that the clinic only managed to tell her she was doing a bad job and take her money but not provide any help; it appears the dog struggled somewhat while giving birth and the complainant says she was left unprepared for any of this despite her vet visit.
Groves says the dog was initially brought into the clinic by a man, not the complainant, because of coronavirus restrictions. The conception date given by the man was too soon for an x-ray so she says she spoke directly with the complainant, getting a different date. She says that the complainant switched places with the man. After examining the dog, Groves tells us that the dog was in fact pregnant; she asked the complainant what food the dog was on and states that the dog needed more food and more calcium. An x-ray was performed but only two skeletons were visible; a second x-ray was performed with precautions but they still couldn't make out much. She informed the complainant that she had no idea about delivery dates but that a temperature drop in the dog could indicate she was about to give birth. She says that the complainant didn't ask her any questions. She also notes she would never have said the dog still had time because she had no idea when the dog would be due. Groves concludes by stating that the clinic did perform a wellness exam and x-rays for the dog.
The Investigative Committee once again chalks this up to a "communication issue," perhaps the most common thing they ever mention in a discussion. The Committee also said that Groves provided the complainant with useful information on the dog's health and diet changes for pregnancy; Groves didn't provide other information, but on the other hand, they say the complainant didn't ask any questions. They also note that it can be hard for a veterinarian to determine how many puppies there are on an x-ray. (On the other hand, this x-ray appears to have been done four days prior to the dog actually giving birth, so one wonders how much of a pseudoscience reading veterinary x-rays can be.)
| Source: | November 11, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Carlotta Groves | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| 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.