| Complaint: | Complaint 21-10 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Angela Mexas |
| Premises: | Desert Veterinary Medical Specialists |
| Related: | 21-09 |
This complaint follows from 21-09 and pertains to Mexas' involvement. The complainant was referred to Mexas as an internal medicine specialist by Bennett, a Midwestern University veterinarian and long-time vet of the complainant. She states that Mexas agreed to do a repeat CT scan on the cat but that she was obviously most interested in money; we're told that once Mexas confirmed money was no object, she recommended a $1000 bone marrow test without any medical rationale other than one hadn't been done. She also says that Mexas gave the cat a Lasix shot without getting her authorization first; she wonders if treating a pet without consent is even legal. Bennett had allegedly said that diuretics could make the cat's situation even worse and used the analogy of sucking a thick fluid through a straw to explain it to her.
The cat continued to suffer from fluid problems (Mexas is said to have been shocked on exam and blamed the complainant for not warning her). The cat went home and the complainant feared the cat was peeing all over because of the diuretic; another veterinarian, Riensche, concluded it was fluid leaking from the catheter site. Subsequent follow-up on the phone occurred with Riensche as Mexas only works every other day; when Mexas got back she said no foreign object was found on the CT scan but that the xiphoid bone was broken. When the complainant said that there wasn't one on the last CT scan she relates that Mexas became defensive and said it was a chronic fracture over and over. Mexas wanted to repeat blood work and another ultrasound for $1100 which the complainant thought was excessive; they put together an offer for $622.50 and the complainant felt like she was literally in a used car lot. Mexas did the ultrasound and informed the complainant that she had never seen "webbed" lungs like the cat's before. The complainant notes that she started to cry which allegedly irritated Mexas; Bennett had told the complainant that Mexas was good at research so she asked Mexas to research what was going on with her cat. Mexas allegedly looked away and said she was doing everything she could, then started talking about the cat's kidney stones (which had never been mentioned prior). She says that Mexas finally told her that she was in denial and left.
The complainant got the actual CT report the next day; far from having no anomaly it said that a round metal attenuation was found in the same general area as the original foreign body. She called to speak with Mexas and tried to record the conversation, but a staff member said that Mexas wouldn't be able to talk to her until she checked with Gonzalez first. The location also matched a VetMed finding of an object in the same region that was dismissed by Mexas in their earlier conversation. Eventually Mexas called back and said she didn't know the metal object was found; she finds this even more peculiar as Gonzalez said in a later recorded conversation that the location of the object was concerning. She no longer trusts them because both Mexas and Riensche failed to mention the object; Mexas subsequently says that she spoke to the radiologist and said that the significance of the object was questionable. Mexas is also said to have markedly changed her assessment of the cat, suggesting that some other problem is behind all the cat's problems. She managed to get her cat an appointment with Janet Bailey at VetMed but the cat died the day before the appointment.
The complainant believes that Mexas, who has strong associations with Midwestern University and worked there as a faculty member, was assisting Gonzalez in a cover-up. She also states that Mexas' actions essentially constituted the torture of her cat by letting the cat suffer in order to avoid finding a problem; she says that it will be hard for her to ever trust another veterinarian again after her experiences at Arizona's top veterinary clinics.
Mexas' response is quite the read. She says that while she understands the complainant is grieving, people need to realize that she, Angela Mexas, is also grieving because she was not able to help this poor cat. She also says that she was never complicit in any way with Midwestern University. She says that she actually recommended further tests and treatments for the cat but they were turned down by the complainant on financial grounds; when pressed she says that she told the complainant that the suggested tests and treatments were likely futile so there wasn't really any reason to do them (odd if she's the one who was recommending them?). She says that she tried to offer "compassionate transparency" and that nobody would be able to find out why the cat was sick, but that the complainant frustratingly kept wanting to find out why her cat was sick. She also confirms that prior to speaking with the complainant, she called up Gonzalez to discuss the results of the CT scan and tests; she says this was because the complainant had misrepresented what Gonzalez had done. The CT scan was apparently read by PetRays (they show up in the background in several complaints and are the target of one), and once Mexas got off the phone with Gonzalez it appears that she started working the in-house radiology team. She also says that according to Gonzalez the complainant never agreed to the surgery he really wanted to do.
The Investigative Committee said that it was obvously okay that Mexas wanted to speak with Gonzalez before she spoke with the complainant; she just wanted to get all the information together! They also found no concerns with giving the cat the Lasix shot. They also found fault with the complainant for assuming the foreign object was the "soul root" (their typo, not mine) of the cat's condition; keep in mind that the complainant says that Gonzalez basically led her to believe that. The Committee voted to dismiss; the vote count says 4 to 0 but only three people were supposed to be there that day (Sidaway, founding dean at Midwestern, was allegedly absent, but we're being told there were four people).
| Source: | December 12, 2020 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Angela Mexas | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Brian Sidaway | Absent |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | February 2, 2021 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| 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.