| Complaint: | Complaint 21-02 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Marlayna Barnard |
| Premises: | BluePearl Avondale |
The complainant states that BluePearl Avondale and Barnard basically killed her dog. She says she brought the dog in for labored breathing, being lethargic, and not eating, but was told that the dog was just in heat. She also claims she was told that the dog had no serious problems and did not have cancer, only general inflammation and some mammary chain masses. She emphasizes that everything seemed to be about money there and that she didn't have unlimited funds; she says that when she got her dog back she could tell the dog was dying just by looking into her eyes. She states that her dog had metastatic cancer and was euthanized at a different veterinarian; she doesn't know how she's going to get through the pain of losing her dog, and she believes she might have been able to do something more if not for BluePearl and Barnard.
Barnard examined the dog and notes some of her findings. She says that it was clear the dog was breathing more rapidly and had an enlarged vulva. The complainant apparently related that the dog had been doing well (though not as active as her other dog) up until the night before; Barnard noted mammary masses and the complainant said they were known and had been there for a few years. The complainant also allegedly told her that one of her dogs was in heat as she found blood on the floor, but she wasn't sure which dog. Barnard says she recommended general lab work, x-rays, a needle aspirate or biopsy, and potentially a valley fever test. She says the complainant only agreed to the x-ray and went home to wait for results; she later called to inform her that there was no sign of problems on the x-ray but denies she ever said the dog was fine or just in heat. She also brought up some food or other material in the stomach. The complainant allegedly asked if there was anything wrong with the intestines but was reminded that the x-rays only covered the chest area. Barnard also alleges that the complainant was talking to a pet psychic and also asked about giving goat's milk to the dog. She says she offered to also do abdominal x-rays but the complainant just wanted to take her dog home. Apparently a staff member also noted blood in the kennel that appeared to be coming from the dog's vulva; the complainant was told the dog was likely in heat and should be monitored. The complainant apparently called and informed her that an ultrasound elsewhere had diagnosed metastatic abdominal cancer and internal hemorrhaging. Barnard mentions the complainant was so angry and distraught it was difficult to talk to her. She also notes the dog was euthanized because the complainant was too poor to pay for surgery, along with stating the complainant told her if she didn't get her money back she'd sue them and report them to the Board.
The Investigative Committee said it was unfortunate the dog got sicker and dropped dead so soon and said the complainant refused the recommended tests. They also said that the dog did not appear "dire" when Barnard examined the dog; the complainant, on the other hand, said that she could tell her dog was dying just from looking in her eyes, and the dog did actually die from metastatic cancer and a coagulation disorder three days later.
It's worth noting that the findings of fact say the complainant took the dog to two additional veterinary clinics, including another emergency clinic, where she paid for hospitalization, testing, and transfusions. It appears that perhaps the complainant wasn't as much of a poor and/or cheap person as Barnard suggests. The findings of fact do state that in the end the complainant euthanized for financial concerns, but if we're to believe any of the buildup to it, it's quite possible that the dog's poor prognosis may have played a key role too.
| Source: | November 11, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Marlayna Barnard | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Aye |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jessica Creager |
| Seconded By: | Jane Soloman |
| 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 | Recused |
| 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.