| Complaint: | Complaint 21-08 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Karen Brophy |
| Premises: | Animal Medical and Surgical Center |
The complainant and her mother took their dog to Animal Medical and Surgical Center because the dog had not been eating, was having diarrhea, and was sluggish and dazed. On check-in the complainant relates that she told the staff she did not want her dog to die without her, but tells us that unfortunately it would happen anyway. She says that during the most critical hours of the dog's life, Brophy and AMSC misrepresented the state of the dog as doing quite well when in reality she was dying. She reviewed her dog's medical records after she died and discovered Brophy claims she talked about euthanasia with her, but says this in fact never happened; she also says her mother was present and will attest to Brophy's falsehood. Her mother allegedly believes that Brophy just wanted to be done with the case and move on to something else. She says they only got to speak with Brophy for a couple of minutes, during which she related her dog had recently regained mobility and gotten into all kinds of things; her concern was that the dog had either ingested something or come into contact with something toxic. Brophy, in contrast, was allegedly obsessed with the dog's liver shunt, a known problem for eight years that had recently been improving; the complainant says Brophy became more difficult when this was pointed out. Brophy took the dog away and allegedly came back saying the dog was now up and moving around as a result of giving the dog syrup; Brophy also allegedly told her to get the dog's special liver shunt food. The complainant ran home, brought it back, and was not allowed to see the dog; Brophy was not available now either. The receptionist she should just go home and wait for an update; she later learned her dog was now critical. She states that her dog only received a dextrose drip from Brophy and her colleagues and was basically left to die in a kennel; she directly accuses not just Brophy but AMSC of outright deception regarding the dog's condition.
Brophy says she examined the dog and ran blood work indicating elevated liver enzymes, liver dysfunction (in her view, probable liver failure), and low blood sugar. She says that after giving the dog Karo syrup, the dog "righted herself into a sternal position" (this seems markedly different than what the complainant was allegedly told, in that the dog was moving around looking for food despite having known mobility issues). She says the complainant turned down blood work, saying she'd rather spend the money on treating the dog; she does admit that the complainant was very worried about leaving the dog alone but was reassured that AMSC staff were very caring. The case was handed off to Falcone, another veterinarian at AMSC, and it appears the dog did even worse at this point. Brophy relates that Falcone called the complainant to say the dog was dying, but the complainant couldn't make it there in time to say goodbye. She also says that she didn't discuss euthanasia with the complainant despite that being in the medical record. Instead she says that entry was made by a technician, Zach Reese, after the fact. She says that she doesn't know why he did it but that it may have been that he thought the dog was euthanized or that it was an accidental error from using a template. Somehow she thinks this may have been entered as a result of the complainant deciding how to deal with the remains of her dog. The record does show her name, but that's only because Reese used a computer Brophy had previously been signed in on.
The Investigative Committee didn't want to talk about this one much at all. They use many of the same euphemisms regarding "mixed expectations" and it being a "confusing case." It also puts significant blame on the complainant for not authorizing all the other tests that Brophy wanted to run. Most of the actual complaint, ranging from alleged tunnel vision about liver disease to allegedy-random medical record entries about euthanasia, don't get a mention.
| Source: | December 12, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Karen Brophy | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| 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.