| Complaint: | Complaint 21-05 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Jules Green |
| Premises: | Arizona Spay Neuter |
The complainant's family took their dog to Green for a spay procedure. On the way back home the cut began to open so her husband and kids turned out and took the dog back. She says Green glued the skin back together and wrapped the dog back up. The dog apparently did well until four days later when, and I quote, "her guts came out of her." They took the dog back to the clinic and were told that they had to remove six inches of intestine but that the dog would be fine. They wanted to see the dog the next morning so the complainant's family decided to admit the dog to hospital. The next morning they got a call saying their dog was having breathing problems and wouldn't make it. The dog apparently died while the family was on the way to say goodbye. She says the clinic refunded most of the money except for the cremation; she also suspects something was done wrong during the original procedure given the complications and that the clinic refunded the fees so they wouldn't complain.
Green's response is likewise short; it largely matches the events listed by the complainant with some deviations. She confirms the dog came back in after being discharged with blood coming from the incision; she reglued the incision and the bleeding stopped, also placing a belly wrap. She also confirms the dog was brought back later for dehiscence; she states that the complainants were told to take the dog to an emergency clinic but they elected to have things done there. She cut out nonviable parts of the intestine and stitched the tissue back together. The dog was monitored until closing time at which point she says the complainant's family was told to take the dog to an emergency clinic. She claims they didn't want to do that so she said the dog needed to come in the next morning. They instead wanted to leave the dog there; she therefore set up some staff schedule to check on the dog as they're not a 24-hour facility. The next day the dog did poorly; she says that they alerted the family but that they didn't want to come down right away. The dog became unresponsive and CPR had no effect; the dog died. She says the complainants actually made the request for a refund and that it was granted because of the coronavirus (does that make any sense?). The family had to pay for a cremation because they wanted an individual cremation.
The Investigative Committee discussed that this was the first time in her 20 years of veterinary practice that Green had performed an anastomosis (the part where she cut away the dead portion of intestine and stitched the ends together). Some Committee members felt she should have been able to do the surgery while others felt she shouldn't have attempted it and left it to somebody else. They also had serious concerns with the postsurgical care provided to the dog, but then go on to come up with myriad ways that the dog could have potentially been responsible for the wound coming apart in the first place. They also wonder if the complainant's family was truly made aware of how important it was to get the dog to an emergency facility. They discuss that "the dog may have stepped on the intestines" or "they could have been strangulated." The Committee made a finding of gross negligence but the Board rounded down to a letter of concern. The letter of concern had nothing to do with the allegedly poor care provided at the clinic; it only focused on not sending the dog elsewhere.
| Source: | December 12, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Jules Green | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; treatment of a patient or practice of veterinary medicine resulting in injury, unnecessary suffering or death that was caused by carelessness, negligence or the disregard of established principles or practices. The dog's incision dehisced - there was inadequate post-operative monitoring and follow up and no pain medication dispensed to the dog after surgery. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| 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 |
| Source: | March 3, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Julie Green | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Unknown |
| Jane Soloman | Unknown |
| Jessica Creager | Unknown |
| Jim Loughead | Unknown |
| Nikki Frost | Unknown |
| Robyn Jaynes | Unknown |
| 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.